Sounds like Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Bernie Sanders and Tinkerbelle are Trump's economic advisers. He is not a fan of free trade, preferring fair trade. Evidently he doesn't know that free trade is the only trade that is fair to all concerned. A free trade benefits both parties to the trade or else they wouldn't trade. What could be more fair than that?
If he want to encourage business, why would he want to put H&R Block out of business? What he has failed to address is how to tax the millions of dollars of "deferred income" which corporate executives are fond of as a way to avoid taxation on their current tax return yet appear as expenses (& thus are not subject to taxation) on the corporate return. Our education and infrastructure coffers go empty because neither entity is paying the tax. They meanwhile find ways to hide or overlook the income over the years, perhaps pass it on to their heirs so it is never taxed. Open your books Mr. Trump.
"Mr. Trump would structure his middle-class tax cut in the simplest way possible: by reducing the marginal tax rates that apply to moderate incomes." Or he could propose to reduce payroll tax rate to just 1% on the first $10K & to 2% on the second $10K for all households & make up the shortfall by raising the limit on payroll tax. This would be a tremendous benefit for the working poor. Many of them would graduate into middle class, which has been shrinking since 1981.
Although eliminating carried interest clause may bring only $2B annually, it is the principle that matters more.
There is nothing wrong in having 2 more higher marginal rates. The top 0.1% in household incomes should pay at 50% rate on that portion of their incomes. And the top 0.01% in household incomes should pay at 70% rate on that portion of their incomes.
Since Mr. Trump had proposed a tax on high assets, I would suggest a 10% on reliable appraised assets of over $1 billion at the end of each year to mitigate the growing inequality. Anyway, most of them are pledging at least half of their assets to charity, which would become unnecessary. Many $billionaires would go along with this proposal, after some hesitation.
Although eliminating carried interest clause may bring only $2B annually, it is the principle that matters more.
There is nothing wrong in having 2 more higher marginal rates. The top 0.1% in household incomes should pay at 50% rate on that portion of their incomes. And the top 0.01% in household incomes should pay at 70% rate on that portion of their incomes.
Since Mr. Trump had proposed a tax on high assets, I would suggest a 10% on reliable appraised assets of over $1 billion at the end of each year to mitigate the growing inequality. Anyway, most of them are pledging at least half of their assets to charity, which would become unnecessary. Many $billionaires would go along with this proposal, after some hesitation.
3
Good luck getting Mexico to pay for a wall on the border. I agree there should be an incentive for businesses to move their production back to the United States. The bigger question is with so much assembly line work being done by robots, that may not make a very big difference to American workers. We should bring back the estate tax to what it was in the 1990s, which is estates were taxed if over 1 million dollars. Today a couple can leave 10 million tax free to their heirs.
5
Inherited wealth is the biggest problem America faces. We fought a revolution to rid ourselves of hereditary rulers like King George, and super wealthy people who inherited the money are today's equivalent. Six of the richest Americans inherited their wealth. Trump inherited his, too.
The super rich are stealing from the rest of us by bribing legislators. The legislators then cut taxes on the wealthy, who today pay about half the rate that middle class people pay.
We should eliminate inheritance over $1 million. To see this and other sensible steps go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak to your group.
The super rich are stealing from the rest of us by bribing legislators. The legislators then cut taxes on the wealthy, who today pay about half the rate that middle class people pay.
We should eliminate inheritance over $1 million. To see this and other sensible steps go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak to your group.
7
Elimination of inheritance over $1M, or even 1$B may not fly. But apply a tax on wealth over $1B, reliably appraised at the end each year. And eliminate any inheritance tax. That tax could be as low as 2% or as high as 10%. The Congress has the constitutional authority to levy tax on incomes and if so chooses on assets. The inheritance tax is tax on assets, which has been constitutional.
In addition to adding sizable revenue, it will reduce inequality.
Inequality in income or wealth actually is not all that horrible. It is not good. But in-erasable inequality based on age, gender, physical & mental health, skin color, intelligence, looks and likability when factored in inequality in wealth & income is much less consequential to human happiness.
In addition to adding sizable revenue, it will reduce inequality.
Inequality in income or wealth actually is not all that horrible. It is not good. But in-erasable inequality based on age, gender, physical & mental health, skin color, intelligence, looks and likability when factored in inequality in wealth & income is much less consequential to human happiness.
2
"5. He has called for higher tariffs on certain imports. In June, he called the North American Free Trade Agreement a “disaster.” He also said he would induce Ford to move an auto plant back to the United States by threatening a 35 percent import tax on cars produced in Mexico. The prime goal of such tariffs would be to discourage imports and encourage companies to produce domestically. But to the extent people continued to buy imported goods despite new tariffs, the government would collect new tariff revenue."
All our trade treaties with other nations contain a "most favored nation" clause meaning that we must apply tariffs at the same level as the lowest we apply to any other nation.
As we likely have such a treaty with Mexico including that clause we will not be able to raise the tariff on their exports to us unless we raise the tariff on other countries to the same rate.
Doesn't Trump have anyone on his staff who can explain this to him?
All our trade treaties with other nations contain a "most favored nation" clause meaning that we must apply tariffs at the same level as the lowest we apply to any other nation.
As we likely have such a treaty with Mexico including that clause we will not be able to raise the tariff on their exports to us unless we raise the tariff on other countries to the same rate.
Doesn't Trump have anyone on his staff who can explain this to him?
2
Trump knows how to make money and create jobs all the others know how to do is spend money and tax the people for more money to spend.
1
Trump's clothing line is made in China. He isn't creating jobs here in the U.S.
Trump declared bankruptcy multiple times. That worked out fine for him but not for the people he left holding the bag.
Trump is about and for himself and no one else. It really is time to wake up and pay attention.
Trump declared bankruptcy multiple times. That worked out fine for him but not for the people he left holding the bag.
Trump is about and for himself and no one else. It really is time to wake up and pay attention.
9
Hey jak - so why isn't he getting started on creating jobs now? Is he holding back on us? And his record for making money isn't quite as impressive as you seem to think it is.
5
I don't think Trump is a worthy leader for America. What he can do?? To negotiate, to make performance, to make a profit. What does it mean? This means that the "crown" is the source of income for his business.
1
Many years ago before the Reagan tax cuts, my only assets were the equity in my house and a savings account with $20,000 in it. I received $1,000 in interest on that account (5%). I had to pay $630 of that $1,000 in federal incomc taxes. I am not wholly opposed to progressive tax rates, but that level is outrageous and there has to be some reasonable limit to the higher rates.
1
False equivalency, James. Who's earning 5% annual interest on a savings account anymore? And just how "many years ago before the Reagan tax cuts" was this? If it was 20 - 25 years before, that $20k might have been the adjusted equivalent of $200 - $250k. This punitive tax rate on what might have been considered excessive savings at the time may very well have been some sort of disguised incentive to get you to invest all of that cash, instead of just sitting on it - but apparently you never got the memo, like so many other Americans who profited handsomely in that day and age did.
6
Yes, those good old Reagan tax cuts.
The debit ceiling was raised 18 times during his administration and the national debt almost tripled.
Just what we need are more tax cuts on unearned income.
The debit ceiling was raised 18 times during his administration and the national debt almost tripled.
Just what we need are more tax cuts on unearned income.
There is a big difference between policy and the conversion of policy into concrete legislation. Both involve a political process, but concrete legislation even more so as people see how the policy will directly affect them. When it affects someone else, that is a different story.
Policy tries to get us moving in the right direction. Some of what is proposed seems OK. Concrete legislation is the road map for getting there. We have not seen any of that yet.
Policy tries to get us moving in the right direction. Some of what is proposed seems OK. Concrete legislation is the road map for getting there. We have not seen any of that yet.
The one person who really needs to read this is Donald Trump so that he can recall all the things he has said about taxes, actually understand what they mean and begin to learn something about how policy is researched and constructed.
Chances are he will just say something like the article is preposterous and move on to another incoherent statement, proposal or scene from his next act.
But really, it it Trump who needs to read about Trump on taxes.
One thing else is certain, whatever he announced on the subject will be met with approval by the now nearly one third of polled Republicans who otherwise would be howling against any tax increase for any purpose whatsoever.
They need and want a fuhrer and they have found one in Donald Trump.
Chances are he will just say something like the article is preposterous and move on to another incoherent statement, proposal or scene from his next act.
But really, it it Trump who needs to read about Trump on taxes.
One thing else is certain, whatever he announced on the subject will be met with approval by the now nearly one third of polled Republicans who otherwise would be howling against any tax increase for any purpose whatsoever.
They need and want a fuhrer and they have found one in Donald Trump.
8
Gonna be tough to build that wall and deport 11 million people, if taxes are cut for all these people. SOMEBODY has to pay for government, and government should be forced to use their resources much more carefully.
9
Israel has a separation barrier with the West Bank. In some places, it is a concrete wall over 25 feet high. In other places, it is multiple layers of fencing. Its purpose is to keep unauthorized people from entering Israel from the West Bank. The average cost of this barrier is about $2 million per kilometer. Thus, a comparable 2000 kilometer barrier would cost about $4 billion.
If you live in Vermont then you can easily see that we share a border with Canada as well. We also have many lakes on the border, such as the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. I don't know how long the border with Canada is, but even the part between Canada and the lower 48 is about 3000 miles, or 5000 kilometers.
I have trouble believing such a low figure for a useful fence. Umm, were you including the cost of acquiring the land, or do you think you will simply build the fence on foreign land and send the bill to Canada and Mexico?
I also have trouble believing that an unmanned unarmored 25-foot fence would be that much of a barrier. Heck, they were scaling walls like that in the Middle Ages. You want to install government watchmen all along the border? Oh, yeah, how about land mines?
I have trouble believing such a low figure for a useful fence. Umm, were you including the cost of acquiring the land, or do you think you will simply build the fence on foreign land and send the bill to Canada and Mexico?
I also have trouble believing that an unmanned unarmored 25-foot fence would be that much of a barrier. Heck, they were scaling walls like that in the Middle Ages. You want to install government watchmen all along the border? Oh, yeah, how about land mines?
It wasn't Trump who suggested a wall in Canada; even Trump isn't that nuts. It was Scott Walker who suggested a wall in Canada.
1
One minor criticism. A flat tax of sorts would be possible and graduated by excluding income. If the first $60,000 is excluded then the same tax rate would be applied to all marginal income above it. It provides simplification and graduation.
3
Still it will be unjust. Progressive taxation is a must, and should be more rigorous.
You know, in effect, our tax system is a lot flatter than we think. The federal income tax is modestly only progressive. Local taxes and payroll tax are quite regressive with the result that about all who are not disabled pay around 25% tax on their incomes. Then many in the lowest group pay huge amounts of their incomes to payday lenders on a regular basis.
You know, in effect, our tax system is a lot flatter than we think. The federal income tax is modestly only progressive. Local taxes and payroll tax are quite regressive with the result that about all who are not disabled pay around 25% tax on their incomes. Then many in the lowest group pay huge amounts of their incomes to payday lenders on a regular basis.
2
One of the many myths propagated by conservatives is that our corporate taxes are high compared to other countries. It is true that our nominal rate of 35% is high, but because of loopholes, this figure is meaningless.
A good parameter to look at is total corporate taxes actually paid divided by GDP because neither of these figures can be fudged by corporations. If you look at developed countries, you will see that Norway has the highest value at 12.5%. The US is tied with Turkey for the lowest at 1.8%. If you look at all the countries touted by conservatives as low tax countries such as Ireland or Canada, you will see that their corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP are higher.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-o...
It seems to me that if our real corporate taxes were in line with the rest of the world or maybe even higher than the average, corporations would think twice about leaving piles of cash lying around and would reinvest them to avoid paying tax.
A good parameter to look at is total corporate taxes actually paid divided by GDP because neither of these figures can be fudged by corporations. If you look at developed countries, you will see that Norway has the highest value at 12.5%. The US is tied with Turkey for the lowest at 1.8%. If you look at all the countries touted by conservatives as low tax countries such as Ireland or Canada, you will see that their corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP are higher.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-o...
It seems to me that if our real corporate taxes were in line with the rest of the world or maybe even higher than the average, corporations would think twice about leaving piles of cash lying around and would reinvest them to avoid paying tax.
23
Trumps 1999 tax plan was the one that made sense.
By Trump's calculations, his proposed 14.25% one-time "net worth tax" on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more and wipe out the debt in one full swoop.
"No one has put forward a plan to make this country entirely debt free as we enter the next millenium," Trump said in a written statement.
"The plan I am proposing today does not involve smoke and mirrors, phony numbers, financial gimmicks, or the usual economic chicanery you usually find in Disneyland-on-the-Potomac," Trump said.
"By my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan," Trump said.
"The other 99 % of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.rich/index.html?...
Sadly, the 2015 Trump Tax Plan appears to be more GOP voodoo economics.
By Trump's calculations, his proposed 14.25% one-time "net worth tax" on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more and wipe out the debt in one full swoop.
"No one has put forward a plan to make this country entirely debt free as we enter the next millenium," Trump said in a written statement.
"The plan I am proposing today does not involve smoke and mirrors, phony numbers, financial gimmicks, or the usual economic chicanery you usually find in Disneyland-on-the-Potomac," Trump said.
"By my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan," Trump said.
"The other 99 % of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.rich/index.html?...
Sadly, the 2015 Trump Tax Plan appears to be more GOP voodoo economics.
8
Wiping out the debt would be the stupidest thing in the history of the US. Even significantly paying it down has always (6 times ) resulted in disaster.
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 36% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 36% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
9
If the debt were paid down in one fell swoop, the stock market would boom. And the government, by paying off all the treasury bills notes and bonds in one fell swoop, would put that money back into the hands of the investors, to invest in the economy. And the government, no longer having to pay that money out in interest, would have money money to invest in infrastructure, and maintain the fiscal integrity of Social Security and Medicare.
1
RM - And where would the money come from? If you are proposing to print it, that may be a good idea although that would not really change the debt because only the FED can print money, so we would still owe the same amount to the FED.
If you propose to do it with taxes, that would be a disaster as you would take the money away from the general population and, as you say, put it in the hands of investors who, as recent history has blindingly shown, would use it to speculate.
BTW, the interest on the debt is running under 1% of GDP the lowest in 60 years.
If you propose to do it with taxes, that would be a disaster as you would take the money away from the general population and, as you say, put it in the hands of investors who, as recent history has blindingly shown, would use it to speculate.
BTW, the interest on the debt is running under 1% of GDP the lowest in 60 years.
3
Trump's "tax plan" and this article are some sort of fantasy designed to fool the American people. It's hard to believe that The Times would allow a story like this to lend credibility to the trickle-down theory of tax policy that has long been discredited through empirical evidence. It appears Mr. Barro and his copy editors need a long sit-down with Paul Krugman on this stuff.
Most of the Republican positions are simply hoaxes designed to delude voters into thinking the GOP is working for them, when it is actually working for the rich. All that corporations and entrepreneurs do with tax incentives is pocket the money and keep their workforces and employee wages as low as possible. We see it all the time here on Long Island, where industrial development agencies give away massive tax breaks to companies so that they will stop their phony threats to move or conduct layoffs. Then, the recipients break their pledges by moving and the already-overburdened taxpayers are stuck with the bill.
Most of the Republican positions are simply hoaxes designed to delude voters into thinking the GOP is working for them, when it is actually working for the rich. All that corporations and entrepreneurs do with tax incentives is pocket the money and keep their workforces and employee wages as low as possible. We see it all the time here on Long Island, where industrial development agencies give away massive tax breaks to companies so that they will stop their phony threats to move or conduct layoffs. Then, the recipients break their pledges by moving and the already-overburdened taxpayers are stuck with the bill.
7
Dial down your pseudo-outrage. The article isn't endorsing what Trump might do, it is simply covering it based on his previous statements. Viewed through that lens, I am appreciative of this detailed overview.
1
You, the ny times, and the media generally are giving Trump much more facetime and publicity then he and his campaign deserve. That is the only reason why his visibility is so high. Please focus on credible candidates, and not this Fool.
7
“ 'We’re the most highly taxed nation in the world', he [The Donald] said, incorrectly, on Fox News last week.” Neither truth nor fact hold any capital for Mr. Trump. Unless by accident, nothing he ever says is correct.
Yet the MSM cover him as though he has something worthwhile to say. He does not. Please give him, and yourselves for that matter, a good long rest away from the high-pressure glare of the national spotlight.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Yet the MSM cover him as though he has something worthwhile to say. He does not. Please give him, and yourselves for that matter, a good long rest away from the high-pressure glare of the national spotlight.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
6
The 2 billion number for revenue gained upon eliminating carried interest, is a number floated by the hedge fund industry, that has unfortunately been parroted by certain columnists. The true increase in revenue was estimated in a recent NY Times column to be nearly 180 billion over 10 years, definitely not an insignificant amount http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/business/dealbook/how-a-carried-intere....
8
At some stage the people will stop listening to the scribes and demand that taxes be collected in a manner appropriate to the age of Uber and Applepay.
Don't believe this stuff about flat tax being unfair to the poor. The opposite is true. Besides, a uniform tax surcharge on taxes above a certain amount could fix that problem easily.
There is no reason why we could not receive a letter once a year from the IRS saying "your income was x last year, we collected 20%of X, if you had income other than that listed on this letter in excess of $500 please fill in form Z".
End of story. See you next year.
As for tax cuts: reduce cable bills, subsidize electric cars, build Nat gas fuel infrastructure for passenger cars, take over student loans and change interest rate to 1%, give seniors a one time soc sec check increase of $100 per month, subsidize solar panels for home builders, etc. etc.
Stop saying we haven't had a raise in years. Movies cost me $1. Stock trades are $5. Energy is about to hit dirt cheap levels. Cars are cheaper.
Stop listening to economists educated in an age that passed long ago.
Don't believe this stuff about flat tax being unfair to the poor. The opposite is true. Besides, a uniform tax surcharge on taxes above a certain amount could fix that problem easily.
There is no reason why we could not receive a letter once a year from the IRS saying "your income was x last year, we collected 20%of X, if you had income other than that listed on this letter in excess of $500 please fill in form Z".
End of story. See you next year.
As for tax cuts: reduce cable bills, subsidize electric cars, build Nat gas fuel infrastructure for passenger cars, take over student loans and change interest rate to 1%, give seniors a one time soc sec check increase of $100 per month, subsidize solar panels for home builders, etc. etc.
Stop saying we haven't had a raise in years. Movies cost me $1. Stock trades are $5. Energy is about to hit dirt cheap levels. Cars are cheaper.
Stop listening to economists educated in an age that passed long ago.
4
It would be more in keeping with Trump, and probably more effective if carried out, to propose eliminating "welfare for the rich." Welfare fior the rich includes taxing "carried interest" as capital gains, subsidies which provide incentives for highly profitable energy companies to make decisions that increase rather than decrease global warming, and interest deductions on the "jumbo" component of jumbo mortgages, and most other forms of tax spending. He could reaonably argue that he is not proposing to raise taxes, the policy would simply close loopholes that prevent the collecction of taxes that otherwise would be due.
3
I have never known anyone who is actually smart to utter the phrase "I am smart". But there's a first time for everything I guess.
12
Years ago my father told me to be wary of anyone claiming to be smart, talented etc. He said anyone who is really smart, talented etc. doesn't need to talk about it, they just quietly go about proving it.
11
Trump is like Santa Claus as he promises the masses popular changes to the tax plan without being too specific as to what he would cut and whom it would affect. Which means....he has no plan.
The question I have is how will he get an obstructive congress to work together on any solution?
Obama has been abysmal at working to pass any legislation or calling the obstructionists out. Will Trump fold under the same treatment or will he go on all the TV shows and call out McConnell and Boehner for not bringing it to a vote? How will he get the legislation passed?
If people want change and vote for Trump...they also have to question their congress persons and senators as to whether they are on board with this plan or will they block it. Trump wants single payer...but will any republican vote for that? We will be in the same boat if we don't fix congress
And...let's not forget the Koch brothers and their billion dollar fund. Trump may not take their money but they will play in all of the local elections and make his job impossible. We all need to vote against any representative that has taken Koch money....Club for Growth....and all of their corrupt phony 501Cs
The question I have is how will he get an obstructive congress to work together on any solution?
Obama has been abysmal at working to pass any legislation or calling the obstructionists out. Will Trump fold under the same treatment or will he go on all the TV shows and call out McConnell and Boehner for not bringing it to a vote? How will he get the legislation passed?
If people want change and vote for Trump...they also have to question their congress persons and senators as to whether they are on board with this plan or will they block it. Trump wants single payer...but will any republican vote for that? We will be in the same boat if we don't fix congress
And...let's not forget the Koch brothers and their billion dollar fund. Trump may not take their money but they will play in all of the local elections and make his job impossible. We all need to vote against any representative that has taken Koch money....Club for Growth....and all of their corrupt phony 501Cs
5
I'm a life long moderate democrat and frankly, these are all very reasonable sound proposals that seem to balance promoting growth, while seeking to reduce the burden on the middle class. He has my vote.
5
Gee that makes sense, ignore his insane ranting, his hypocrisy, his failures and lies and vote for him because he promises you a pony.
4
Yes, definitely ignore the insane rantings and whatever else this life long moderate even left leaning new yorker needs to do or say to pander to the 'conservative base' in order to secure the Republican nomination. Because whats important and relevant is the policy. I'm for taxing earned interest. It sounds like you are too. I think Hedge Fund guys don't pay enough taxes and on the other hand I think the middle class pay too much. I think the American working class needs an protectionist ally bent on keeping American wealth in the country to the benefit of the American people. That's what Trumps proposing. European style protectionism. I don't think those are ponies... they are actually very attainable policies. And I think he can deliver them.
1
Including the Trump Wall?
A cartoon in the New Yorker for you.
It showed an old sailing boat at a shoreline with a Pilgrim in the bow. The shore had a high wall of logs all along it except for a small opening where an Indian was fitting logs to close it. The caption was:
"We don't want your kind around here."
A cartoon in the New Yorker for you.
It showed an old sailing boat at a shoreline with a Pilgrim in the bow. The shore had a high wall of logs all along it except for a small opening where an Indian was fitting logs to close it. The caption was:
"We don't want your kind around here."
5
Earth to NY Times: there is no Trump Tax plan. Just the incoherent ranting of a blowhard's mind.
8
Trump has come out against 2 policies much loved by the NYT - free trade agreements and allowing illegal aliens to remain here. Trump’s attacks on these policies have struck a bell with the public.
Instead of spending one column after another denigrating Trump, may I suggest the Times actually do some investigative reporting? Please tell us how the free trade agreements and having illegal aliens in the country are impacting us now and how they could affect our future. Please include the social ramifications on people who cannot find a decent paying job because so many manufacturing plants are now in Mexico and other low wage countries. And because illegal aliens have taken a large percentage of the remaining jobs (and, who, by their sheer numbers, are keeping wages down).
Then write about the effect of these unemployed citizens on their families and on our society.
Thank you.
Instead of spending one column after another denigrating Trump, may I suggest the Times actually do some investigative reporting? Please tell us how the free trade agreements and having illegal aliens in the country are impacting us now and how they could affect our future. Please include the social ramifications on people who cannot find a decent paying job because so many manufacturing plants are now in Mexico and other low wage countries. And because illegal aliens have taken a large percentage of the remaining jobs (and, who, by their sheer numbers, are keeping wages down).
Then write about the effect of these unemployed citizens on their families and on our society.
Thank you.
4
syltherapyprovides some answers. According to the immigration policy center, states across the country would lose billions of dollars in economic activity should all undocumented immigrants suddenly leave.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/immigration-by-state
New York - "If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from New York in 2008, the state would lose $28.7 billion in economic activity, $12.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 137,013 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time, according to a report by the Perryman Group."
New Jersey - "If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from New Jersey, the state would lose $24.2 billion in economic activity, $10.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 103,898 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time, according to a report by the Perryman Group."
Pennsylvania - "If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Pennsylvania, the state would lose $5.3 billion in economic activity, $2.3 billion in gross state product, and approximately 27,718 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time, according to a report by the Perryman Group."
Similarly for other states.
I am sick and tired of reading descriptions of undocumented immigrants as drains on our economies and society. They provide huge cultural and economic benefits that need to be better understood in order to bring our immigration debate into a saner realm.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/immigration-by-state
New York - "If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from New York in 2008, the state would lose $28.7 billion in economic activity, $12.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 137,013 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time, according to a report by the Perryman Group."
New Jersey - "If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from New Jersey, the state would lose $24.2 billion in economic activity, $10.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 103,898 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time, according to a report by the Perryman Group."
Pennsylvania - "If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Pennsylvania, the state would lose $5.3 billion in economic activity, $2.3 billion in gross state product, and approximately 27,718 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time, according to a report by the Perryman Group."
Similarly for other states.
I am sick and tired of reading descriptions of undocumented immigrants as drains on our economies and society. They provide huge cultural and economic benefits that need to be better understood in order to bring our immigration debate into a saner realm.
12
To Len Charlap:
There are lots of groups who are looking at these issues. Many have different perspectives, and so start from different assumptions and rely on different data. It would be helpful if the NYT could (at least try) to objectively parse some of the research for us readers.
There are lots of groups who are looking at these issues. Many have different perspectives, and so start from different assumptions and rely on different data. It would be helpful if the NYT could (at least try) to objectively parse some of the research for us readers.
2
Tax cuts matter only to those whose ox is being gored.
You can bet the farm that none of (fill in the blank for your favorite candidate) endeavors will be gored.
You can bet the farm that none of (fill in the blank for your favorite candidate) endeavors will be gored.
1
It sounds as if it doesn’t add up because it doesn’t, but these, like many things Trump says and has said in past, are probably the contemporaneous (true-at-the-time) views of many Americans, which, even if they can be reconciled, do not fit squarely within the Democratic or Republican parties.
1
Reducing marginal tax rates on the middle class while also eliminating credits and deductions may be self cancelling leaving the middle class nom better off than before. Cutting taxes on the wealthy may have some effect upon investment, boosting share prices, increasing the net worth of the already rich, but how it translates to the remainder of the economy in any meaningful way has yet to be demonstrated, and thus remains Republican myth. Cutting corporate taxes will most certainly result in stock buy back, increase s in executive compensation, and increased mergers and acquisitions. The latter reducing competition, and eliminating pension funds. Remember that M&A remains Mitt Romney's primary business activity, and ask yourself just what did all of those displaced workers get out of it?. Taxing carried interest, while a step towards fairness, may be negated by the tax reductions on corporations and the wealthy. With foreign labor, including the technically trained, still being paid a fraction of US income, it is doubtful there will be a land rush of returning manufacturing, despite increased tax penalty. On balance, this looks simply like more formula for making the already rich richer.
2
Thanks, Josh, but let's be honest. Trump is more of an idea-man than a planner, so I think it would be best to lower your expectation that he will release anything like an actual plan.
Also, since Trump values only anecdotal evidence and regards all other factual data to be insignificant, don't expect much in the way of supporting analysis, either.
In short, look for a few scribbles on a bar napkin. After all (cf. Dr. Laffer, Laffer curve), that's been the basis of Republican tax policy since Reagan.
Also, since Trump values only anecdotal evidence and regards all other factual data to be insignificant, don't expect much in the way of supporting analysis, either.
In short, look for a few scribbles on a bar napkin. After all (cf. Dr. Laffer, Laffer curve), that's been the basis of Republican tax policy since Reagan.
8
Since his ideas are unoriginal and nondescript I think you should have put idea-man in quotes.
3
Let me see if I understand. Corporations are people when it comes to "free speech," but they are not people when it comes to taxation? Have I got that right?
28
Come next November, we will have the choice of voting for one of two Republicans. Whoever ends up being the Dem will surely not mention tax increases, massive infrastructure spending, or withdrawal from the rat-hole money-suck which is the Mid-East.
Four more years of either new wars (R) or holding course on the old ones (D) are our lame, undemocratic, 1%-approved choices. The Cavalry isn't coming, Superman is busy, and we are stuck with only those wearing strings on their ankles and wrists. Lord help us.
Four more years of either new wars (R) or holding course on the old ones (D) are our lame, undemocratic, 1%-approved choices. The Cavalry isn't coming, Superman is busy, and we are stuck with only those wearing strings on their ankles and wrists. Lord help us.
3
Why does the media perpetuate this coverage of the pouting peacock, who reverses his bright ideas on a daily basis?
As the facts Mr. Barro has revealed demonstrate, Mr. Trump is vague and contradictory as a rule. He is also a misogynist and a racist and, as he demonstrated quite clearly in his "Birther" incarnation, that he is an individual smart enough to know the "truth" but self-serving enough to lie anyway. There is a clinical term for this, though I am no psychiatrist.
Sadly, Mr. Trump is but one candidate in a proverbial ship of fools, as our country stands at a dangerous inflection point. One choice surely brings us the "promise" of a future where history is re-written daily, then tossed down the memory chute, the illiterate masses are unable to process a single meaningful truth, the middle class is muted by impending financial crisis and impoverished by taxes, war becomes diplomacy, and relentless entertainment replaces meaningful analysis and connection.
The other option is a strong, intelligent woman who has spent her entire adult life in public service. Stop the ridiculous coverage of the ostensible "e mail scandal" and start covering the ideas she has already delivered.
Change will not be forced upon us. We will choose it.
As the facts Mr. Barro has revealed demonstrate, Mr. Trump is vague and contradictory as a rule. He is also a misogynist and a racist and, as he demonstrated quite clearly in his "Birther" incarnation, that he is an individual smart enough to know the "truth" but self-serving enough to lie anyway. There is a clinical term for this, though I am no psychiatrist.
Sadly, Mr. Trump is but one candidate in a proverbial ship of fools, as our country stands at a dangerous inflection point. One choice surely brings us the "promise" of a future where history is re-written daily, then tossed down the memory chute, the illiterate masses are unable to process a single meaningful truth, the middle class is muted by impending financial crisis and impoverished by taxes, war becomes diplomacy, and relentless entertainment replaces meaningful analysis and connection.
The other option is a strong, intelligent woman who has spent her entire adult life in public service. Stop the ridiculous coverage of the ostensible "e mail scandal" and start covering the ideas she has already delivered.
Change will not be forced upon us. We will choose it.
2
The Clinton's are contemptuous self serving demagogues. The same as all professional politicians. If you vote Dem or Rep you'll keep getting the same results and maintain the status quo just as they want. The 2 party system is a virtual 1 party system that plays good cop/bad cop every election cycle to maintain their power. As long as there is no outsiders making trouble they have no reason to change. I'd vote Trump just to see if the system is even possible of change.
2
Corporations and the self employed get enough tax breaks already. They don't need more.
The employed get to deduct no work related expenses. We need a car to get to and from work yet we can deduct none of the expense of ownership unlike a business or the self employed who get to deduct $.55 or more for every mile driven. We need clothing and tools we can only deduct beyond an astronomical amount. Business and self employed? Deduct from dollar one. We buy a lunch or bring one from home? No deduction for that! We pay for half of our ridiculously priced health "insurance"? No deduction for that either but there sure is a business deduction. But hey our tax code is unfriendly to businesses! It seems to me that it is the working man who is getting the raw end of the deal. The businesses with all of their deductions seem to be doing just fine.
The employed get to deduct no work related expenses. We need a car to get to and from work yet we can deduct none of the expense of ownership unlike a business or the self employed who get to deduct $.55 or more for every mile driven. We need clothing and tools we can only deduct beyond an astronomical amount. Business and self employed? Deduct from dollar one. We buy a lunch or bring one from home? No deduction for that! We pay for half of our ridiculously priced health "insurance"? No deduction for that either but there sure is a business deduction. But hey our tax code is unfriendly to businesses! It seems to me that it is the working man who is getting the raw end of the deal. The businesses with all of their deductions seem to be doing just fine.
20
Trump Tax Plan {Revised}:
- Reduce Tax Rates
- Impose Tariffs BUT not call it a tax increase
- Reduce Federal Deficit
- Everyone will get really really rich
Voodoo Economics 2.0
- Reduce Tax Rates
- Impose Tariffs BUT not call it a tax increase
- Reduce Federal Deficit
- Everyone will get really really rich
Voodoo Economics 2.0
23
Trump Tax Plan
- Reduce Tax Rates
- Raise Tariffs BUT don't call it a tax increase
- Reduce Federal Deficit
Voodoo Economics 2.0 here we come
- Reduce Tax Rates
- Raise Tariffs BUT don't call it a tax increase
- Reduce Federal Deficit
Voodoo Economics 2.0 here we come
5
The truth is that no one has a clue what a President Trump would do as president. In the past he's sounded pretty liberal, now he's a right wing extremist.
President Trump might be one who could lead the tea party back to reality. Kind of like only Nixon could go to China. I doubt it and won't be voting for him but in the gang of 17 (or are there more now?) republicans running he might be the least extreme when you look at some of his proposals. Which other republican candidate is suggesting taxing hedge fund managers more fairly?
President Trump might be one who could lead the tea party back to reality. Kind of like only Nixon could go to China. I doubt it and won't be voting for him but in the gang of 17 (or are there more now?) republicans running he might be the least extreme when you look at some of his proposals. Which other republican candidate is suggesting taxing hedge fund managers more fairly?
6
Don't even pretend to say "President Trump."
2
Thank you for addressing issues rather than celebrity.
It would be interesting to see if Mr. Trump bows to the Grover Norquist-Koch alliance against any tax reform that is not revenue neutral or revenue lowering. If he uses those terms, then we know who he is know-towing to.
Reforming the tax code is not a simple matter. It might take several 2,000 page bills that Senators and Congressmen don't read. So I wouldn't expect Mr. Trump to do more than purpose initial changes that dovetail with other policies ( like the tariff).
But talking about eliminating tax loopholes, deductions and credits so that H & R Block is put out of business is just rheoorical flourish. The tax credits, loopholes, and deductions dealt with by H & R Block, by and large, are those paltry few that benefit the middle class. The real fat in the tax code are the loopholes that benefit corporation, special interest groups and the very wealthy. Does H & R Block do Mr. Trump's taxes?
It would be interesting to see if Mr. Trump bows to the Grover Norquist-Koch alliance against any tax reform that is not revenue neutral or revenue lowering. If he uses those terms, then we know who he is know-towing to.
Reforming the tax code is not a simple matter. It might take several 2,000 page bills that Senators and Congressmen don't read. So I wouldn't expect Mr. Trump to do more than purpose initial changes that dovetail with other policies ( like the tariff).
But talking about eliminating tax loopholes, deductions and credits so that H & R Block is put out of business is just rheoorical flourish. The tax credits, loopholes, and deductions dealt with by H & R Block, by and large, are those paltry few that benefit the middle class. The real fat in the tax code are the loopholes that benefit corporation, special interest groups and the very wealthy. Does H & R Block do Mr. Trump's taxes?
16
Trump has been a bold face lair for years.Why anyone would look at his vague announcements as facts is beyond me.When his real estate deals fall apart he calls the bankers who loaned him money IDIOTS.He proudly points to Atlantic city saying he got out before the whole place feel apart and laughs at the suckers.He screams about special interests in politics then refuses to do away with the Citizens United bill.Nothing this man says holds up under even a dim bulb.The fact that he is such a poor candidate in fact and so teflon to the right shows how inept they are.The rest of the world is amazed we could takes seriously such a clown running for president.
15
Trump's "tax plan" is the "same old, same old." Why don't you give as much space to the tax plans of Bernie Sanders or Robert Reich?
54
Josh Barro has not done the US tax situation conversation any favors reporting the ADDHA ramblings of a perverse media darling of a perverse media who will never win the GOP nomination. Do we really need more tabloid fake drama. Trump gets all the column inches while Sanders get short shrift and Clinton is indited on a daily bases for running her emails the way half the people in DC do.
When will someone in the media - financial press begin to tell the truth about Republican tax reform and how it is destroying our nation?
And is this really the only piece in the politics section where readers are offered an opportunity to comment. It is the only one I see while perusing the section headings.
When will someone in the media - financial press begin to tell the truth about Republican tax reform and how it is destroying our nation?
And is this really the only piece in the politics section where readers are offered an opportunity to comment. It is the only one I see while perusing the section headings.
5
The Republican tax philosophy, whatever it is beyond cutting and none, is frankly a travesty. We badly need revenue to repair our severely damaged infrastructure and that is just one of many problems.
Also, Trump's statements about taxing may be significant but presenting them to a Congress that is so divided and chaotic (that translates to useless) puts them on schedule to go nowhere.
That is the problem with nearly all the tax solutions presented by the Republican candidates.
Also, Trump's statements about taxing may be significant but presenting them to a Congress that is so divided and chaotic (that translates to useless) puts them on schedule to go nowhere.
That is the problem with nearly all the tax solutions presented by the Republican candidates.
21
Steve,
Have you looked at the pie chart on wiikipedia which represents the budget of the U.S. ? There isn't much spent on infrastructure.
I'd rather pay higher state rate and tell the feds to go F themselves. (not pay fed taxes).
Social Security and Defense spending.
Not much infrastructure.
Have you looked at the pie chart on wiikipedia which represents the budget of the U.S. ? There isn't much spent on infrastructure.
I'd rather pay higher state rate and tell the feds to go F themselves. (not pay fed taxes).
Social Security and Defense spending.
Not much infrastructure.
A recent poll of Republicans had 75% saying they'd NEVER vote for Trump. Why are we wasting so much time and effort talking about this buffoon who hasn't a clue but loves the spotlight? The sooner we stop talking about him, the sooner we can hear some serious proposals for improving our economy. In the meantime this is a preposterous waste of energy.
11
Because he leads with 25% in Iowa & NH; 2 quirky states. The 75% are split among the other 15/16. The press likes leaders and crowd raisers lie Trump & Bernie. Please take Polls in the Midwestern states where the 2016 election results + those of FL, VA & PA will define the winner.
Liberals are having a field day with Trump, as it seemingly validates their narrative that all Republicans are crazy. But we are seeing less commentary from the media on the policies of Bernie Sanders, the Socialist who is more than effectively challenging Hillary for the Democratic nomination. I somehow doubt we will be seeing thorough analysis of the Senator's calls for nationalization and confiscation of wealth anytime soon. That, after all, would validate the Conservative narrative that Liberals are far more Red than they care to admit. And of course, we can't let that cat out of the bag, can we?
4
Bernie Sanders has not called for "nationalization." And if you consider taxes "confiscation of wealth" then even Trump and Bush and Cruz support "confiscation of wealth."
19
Er, really?
2
Sen. Sanders is not the Democratic front runner (yet).
Whacky world...a demagog, border line racist, sexist...Trump...on some issues,
actually makes the most sense of any candidate on some of the other issues, like taxes...
actually makes the most sense of any candidate on some of the other issues, like taxes...
11
How about we wait and see what The Donald actually proposes.
If it makes as much sense as his wall on the Mexican border (or Scott Walker's wall on the Canadian border), we can just say "No, thank you." That assumes, of course, that The Donald gives us some substance for a change, rather than just talking points with no explanation of how he, or anybody, would actually carry out the "plan" that has been described.
If it makes as much sense as his wall on the Mexican border (or Scott Walker's wall on the Canadian border), we can just say "No, thank you." That assumes, of course, that The Donald gives us some substance for a change, rather than just talking points with no explanation of how he, or anybody, would actually carry out the "plan" that has been described.
7
The main thing I gather from this article is that Trump's tax "plans" are vague, contradictory, logically incoherent and partly based on erroneous assumptions. Ergo, we have a news article that is mostly speculation on what Trump’s policy positions are. It could almost make one think that Trump is just a vanity/celebrity candidate who otherwise doesn’t have a clue about actual governance.
7
We live in a rentier economy - the very weathly make their money on rents - basically they clip coupons, kick back and spend endless says vacationing. And then there are the endless stock buybacks which give the wealthy an enormous infusion of cash with the result that nothing is produced and nothing in invested in new products. These folks are the 1%, and this is the cause of our vast inequality and this is the reason the stock market is so chaotic : the man or woman on Main Street doesn't have enough money to buy things. And the very rich only invest in themselves. Mr . Trump will not be of help in addressing these issues.
15
That's not the plan that will win him middle class votes because we know that all the other costs that we cover like health, home and auto insurance will continue to skyrocket.
First, everyone needs to pay taxes. No more free rides. Buy into the country. Next, SS needs to have no maximum cap. Next, $300,000 and up pays 25% minimum with no deductions to lower that floor. Finally, end sports write-offs where companies finance sports teams with luxury boxes.
First, everyone needs to pay taxes. No more free rides. Buy into the country. Next, SS needs to have no maximum cap. Next, $300,000 and up pays 25% minimum with no deductions to lower that floor. Finally, end sports write-offs where companies finance sports teams with luxury boxes.
4
A big part of the problem is that high income wage earners (especially the self-employed) are over-taxed, while high income "investors" are not because their wages are not characterized as ordinary income by the Code.
Fixing that is but one part of the solution to the equation. But simplifying the Code, largely getting rid of deductions, and stopping this nonsense of picking winners and losers for political reasons has to go, once and for all.
Fixing that is but one part of the solution to the equation. But simplifying the Code, largely getting rid of deductions, and stopping this nonsense of picking winners and losers for political reasons has to go, once and for all.
4
Good to see the same old argument that plays against itself. He wants to give wealthy people a cut in taxes to provide them with an incentive to work harder. Meanwhile if you talk about giving the poor any more benefits, we are told that the more money you give them, the less incentive they have to work.
What about the people who are lucky enough to live on inherited wealth? Is he going to rewrite the codes for them to pay more in taxes?
What about the people who are lucky enough to live on inherited wealth? Is he going to rewrite the codes for them to pay more in taxes?
42
Searching for Just the Right Blend
The 2-4-8 Tax Blend described at TaxNetWealth.com is exactly the kind of tax reform Donald Trump says he wants. In brief, it eliminates payroll taxes to encourage U.S. job creation and permanently increase take home pay for workers. A 4% VAT (the kind of tax favored by Ted Cruz) and elimination of business tax expenditures will keep Social Security well funded for decades to come. In fact the C corporation income tax could be lowered to 8% - a little below the actual percentage rate paid by the average corporation.
The individual reforms can use the two hot button issues of Mr. Trump's history (wealth tax and estate tax) in a much better (and constitutional) way. Consider a flat 26% income tax rate with estate taxes, or the taxpayer option of paying a low 8% income tax rate combined with a 2% net wealth tax (excluding $500,000 retirement-health-education savings) and no estate tax.
The tax blend gives most a tax break until family wealth goes over a million dollars - and that is a good thing. It also gives the very wealthy (like Mr. Trump himself) the option of not being taxed on their billions in assets so they can make needed investments, but keeps the estate tax for those that do.
Of course no tax expenditures are needed if everyone can choose an 8% income tax rate. The tax blend also enables the lowest rates possible to produce the same revenue. Giving the same choice to rich and poor suggest a fairer tax then the one we have.
The 2-4-8 Tax Blend described at TaxNetWealth.com is exactly the kind of tax reform Donald Trump says he wants. In brief, it eliminates payroll taxes to encourage U.S. job creation and permanently increase take home pay for workers. A 4% VAT (the kind of tax favored by Ted Cruz) and elimination of business tax expenditures will keep Social Security well funded for decades to come. In fact the C corporation income tax could be lowered to 8% - a little below the actual percentage rate paid by the average corporation.
The individual reforms can use the two hot button issues of Mr. Trump's history (wealth tax and estate tax) in a much better (and constitutional) way. Consider a flat 26% income tax rate with estate taxes, or the taxpayer option of paying a low 8% income tax rate combined with a 2% net wealth tax (excluding $500,000 retirement-health-education savings) and no estate tax.
The tax blend gives most a tax break until family wealth goes over a million dollars - and that is a good thing. It also gives the very wealthy (like Mr. Trump himself) the option of not being taxed on their billions in assets so they can make needed investments, but keeps the estate tax for those that do.
Of course no tax expenditures are needed if everyone can choose an 8% income tax rate. The tax blend also enables the lowest rates possible to produce the same revenue. Giving the same choice to rich and poor suggest a fairer tax then the one we have.
3
The Republican Party is keen on "low taxes" not "no taxes" and judicious spending. Mr. Trump is a highly successful person. He would cut the "fat." A business person looks for the "return on investment." There are so many loopholes and deductions in the current tax system most Americans need an accountant to do their taxes. And with those deductions comes a lot of stealing. Many cash business' have two sets of books. If we weren't so highly taxed on everything people would have more money in their pockets.
3
Surely you jest. The Republican party has given us corporate welfare and two very expensive, senseless wars.
I've got to hand it to them though, they're great at selling snake oil.
I've got to hand it to them though, they're great at selling snake oil.
57
highly successful at filing bankruptcies (4).
26
What is your source for saying that most Americans need an accountant to do their taxes?
11
Whatever his actual "conservative" bone fides, Mr. Trump has hopefully broken the monolithic "no taxes" stand of the Republican Party. He has at least two interests in doing this. First, Trump as a businessman needs middle class customers with money to spend -- the more the better. Therefore, lower middle class taxes. Secondly, via tax proposals, Trump is knowingly addressing class issues rather than culture war ones, for that is where the real anger of Tea Partiers (and others) lies. And therein he is trying to increase his political power.
And the Republican Party is outraged, and so far powerless here.
And the Republican Party is outraged, and so far powerless here.
21