Trump tax plan?

[sophie]

Fear not. In yet another shining example of the quality of American journalism, the 401K rumor was inferred from an unfortunately not too reliable source (i.e. Sean Spicer):

Spicer was asked at the White House Thursday for clarification about whether Trump would consider eliminating benefits in the tax system for those saving for retirement, such as owners of 401(k) accounts.

"The secretary of the treasury and and director Cohn yesterday both talked about that. The current plan right now both protects charitable giving and mortgage interest, and that's it," Spicer said.

Many interpreted that statement to mean the benefits of 401(k)s and other savings accounts were on the chopping block.
...
The White House, however, later clarified that getting rid of the benefits for 401(k)s and other accounts was not under consideration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... hat-it-is/

Also, not surprisingly Republican congress members in New York, New Jersey, and California won't go for eliminating the state/local tax deduction, and there are enough of them to scuttle the tax bill assuming that it will get zero Democratic votes:

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... epublicans

Sounds like this bill is headed for the same fate as the Obamacare replacement.

[tennpaga]

1. AFAIK, yes; personal exemptions will remain for taxpayers themselves....but NOT for dependents. The increased standard deduction is supposed to make up for this. However, for taxpayers with a stay-at-home spouse and several dependents, it will not fully make up for it and these taxpayers (many of whom are lower middle to upper middle class) will actually pay slightly higher taxes overall due to this; Lily Batchelder reports up to 25 million Americans could pay higher taxes due to this (and due to the elimination of deductions for state and local taxes).

That's the family-friendly GOP right there.

Getting rid of exemptions for dependents would (and should) kill it, IMO.

[tennpaga]

Fear not. In yet another shining example of the quality of American journalism, the 401K rumor was inferred from an unfortunately not too reliable source (i.e. Sean Spicer):

Spicer was asked at the White House Thursday for clarification about whether Trump would consider eliminating benefits in the tax system for those saving for retirement, such as owners of 401(k) accounts.

"The secretary of the treasury and and director Cohn yesterday both talked about that. The current plan right now both protects charitable giving and mortgage interest, and that's it," Spicer said.

Many interpreted that statement to mean the benefits of 401(k)s and other savings accounts were on the chopping block.
...
The White House, however, later clarified that getting rid of the benefits for 401(k)s and other accounts was not under consideration.

Thanks for the clarification, sophie.

And, well, crap. Note to self: DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO STUFF JOURNALISTS WRITE ON TWITTER.

[Desert]

I'm getting tired of winning.

I know, snark. But I agree, this bill is headed to the scrap heap where the healthcare bill went. And this is a GOP administration and congress. The GOP needs a reset of some sort.

[tennpaga]

Trump Tax Plan Leaves the Swamp Untouched
-- Charles Hugh Smith in The American Conservative

Excerpts:

President Trump’s tax plan gives those of us with long memories a strong sense of déjà vu. We’ve seen this play before, and the ending is inevitably modest: a few of the pieces of a horrendously complex, unfair tax system are moved around, victory is declared, and the creatures of the Swamp—those self-serving elites that benefit from the complex, unfair monstrosity—continue raking in their billions of dollars in fees while the rest of us are burdened with billions of dollars in tax-preparation costs.

The opening act of this tax-reform play always starts with a claim that by golly, this time we’re really going to simplify the tax code. Trump’s plan calls for reducing the number of tax brackets and eliminating all deductions other than those for charity and mortgage interest; by way of compensation, the standard deduction will be doubled.
...
Simple changes like reducing the number of tax brackets skirt the core problem with the U.S. tax system: the entire tax code is little more than a clearinghouse of political bribes paid for with tax breaks and a complexity thicket that requires the services of legions of accountants, tax attorneys, software coders, and specialists in tax-avoidance strategies.
...
In this larger context, how much impact will Trump’s signature tax cuts on the corporate rate (from 35 percent to 15 percent) or on the top earned-income rate have on the inequities of the tax system?

A lower corporate tax rate that was applied more uniformly would certainly reduce the necessity of costly tax avoidance schemes—but the current Swamp enables some companies to pay near-zero, which is a lot less than 15 percent.

As for the modest reduction in the top earned-income bracket: as we’ve seen, the bulk of the taxes paid by the bottom 80 percent are payroll taxes on earned income, and the unearned income flowing to the wealthiest 10 percent is taxed at a much lower rate than the combined payroll-income tax burden on wage earners.

[Cortopassi]

Can someone please explain to me why anyone runs for office? Is it really power? For someone like Trump?

Trump is the head of a mutibillion dollar empire. Why would someone like that want to be president, with its 24 hour a day needs, scrutiny, stress, etc?

Same if Clinton won? What's the drive? They also have enough money to live comfortably for generations.

If it isn't power, then what? Wanting to change things? Then why am I getting the sense Trump is flip flopping on everything? He is such an aggressive guy on twitter, then he gets in office, and oh, ok, maybe we shouldn't shut the government down, oh, ok, I can put off building the wall, oh, ok, China is not a currency manipulator, oh, ok, maybe we do need to go into Syria, N Korea, etc.

Dammit!

I wonder if Bernie would have been the biggest potential for change.

[Mountaineer]

And, well, crap. Note to self: DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO STUFF JOURNALISTS WRITE ON TWITTER.

How about:
And, well, crap. Note to self: DON'T PAY ATTENTION (I.E. SAVE TWISTED KNICKERS FOR THE STUFF I HAVE INFLUENCE OVER) TO STUFF JUST ABOUT ANYONE WRITES ON ANY JUST ABOUT ANY "NEWS, FAKE OR OTHERWISE " OUTLET.

[Jack Jones]

Can someone please explain to me why anyone runs for office? Is it really power? For someone like Trump?

I think it's a desire to stay relevant. People who have everything except for the realization that they will soon return to dust and be forgotten:

Lucilla saw Verus die, and then Lucilla died. Secunda saw Maximus die, and then Secunda died. Epitynchanus saw Diotimus die, and Epitynchanus died. Antoninus saw Faustina die, and then Antoninus died. Such is everything. Celer saw Hadrian die, and then Celer died. And those sharp-witted men, either seers or men inflated with pride, where are they? For instance the sharp-witted men, Charax and Demetrius the Platonist and Eudaemon, and any one else like them. All ephemeral, dead long ago. Some indeed have not been remembered even for a short time, and others have become the heroes of fables, and again others have disappeared even from fables. Remember this then, that this little compound, thyself, must either be dissolved, or thy poor breath must be extinguished, or be removed and placed elsewhere.

http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/medit ... eight.html

[Cortopassi]

OK, I understand the staying relevant. But the guy has billions and currently seems to be waffling on a lot by some unseen forces.

Maybe they are negotiating tactics, but he seems to be pulling back from most of his campaign issues/promises in some form or another.

If I had billions, I would want to do great things with whatever time I had left, and not waste my time on twitter moaning about the latest thing.

I know it hasn't been long, and I still wouldn't have voted for Clinton, but damn, any hopes I had are dropping fast.

[Kriegsspiel]

Can someone please explain to me why anyone runs for office? Is it really power? For someone like Trump?

Trump is the head of a mutibillion dollar empire. Why would someone like that want to be president, with its 24 hour a day needs, scrutiny, stress, etc?

Same if Clinton won? What's the drive? They also have enough money to live comfortably for generations.

If it isn't power, then what? Wanting to change things? Then why am I getting the sense Trump is flip flopping on everything? He is such an aggressive guy on twitter, then he gets in office, and oh, ok, maybe we shouldn't shut the government down, oh, ok, I can put off building the wall, oh, ok, China is not a currency manipulator, oh, ok, maybe we do need to go into Syria, N Korea, etc.

Dammit!

I wonder if Bernie would have been the biggest potential for change.

Let's say Trump just didn't really know fuckall about anything. So he figured he would go in and show all the dumbasses in government how to do things. Now that he's learning how the world works from people who've been dealing with it for a bit, he kinda acts like every other president has acted. You could call it the George Friedman factor: geopolitics is all that matters.

[technovelist]

Can someone please explain to me why anyone runs for office? Is it really power? For someone like Trump?

Trump is the head of a mutibillion dollar empire. Why would someone like that want to be president, with its 24 hour a day needs, scrutiny, stress, etc?

Same if Clinton won? What's the drive? They also have enough money to live comfortably for generations.

If it isn't power, then what? Wanting to change things? Then why am I getting the sense Trump is flip flopping on everything? He is such an aggressive guy on twitter, then he gets in office, and oh, ok, maybe we shouldn't shut the government down, oh, ok, I can put off building the wall, oh, ok, China is not a currency manipulator, oh, ok, maybe we do need to go into Syria, N Korea, etc.

Dammit!

I wonder if Bernie would have been the biggest potential for change.

I think the motivations are different in these two cases (Trump and Hillary).

For Trump, it was probably just a lark at first, then he realized that he might actually be able to beat her. At that point, he went into "achievement mode", which for him means working nearly 24 hours a day and doing everything possible to win.

For Hillary, it was a way to become a billionaire, totally destroy the economy, punish everyone who had ever crossed her (a lot of people), and avoid prosecution for her multitudinous crimes. Also, it was her turn!

[Xan]

Let's say Trump just didn't really know fuckall about anything. So he figured he would go in and show all the dumbasses in government how to do things. Now that he's learning how the world works from people who've been dealing with it for a bit, he kinda acts like every other president has acted. You could call it the George Friedman factor: geopolitics is all that matters.

I think this is likely to be the truth.

And, it means that either a) this kind of foreign policy is, in fact, the best possible foreign policy, or b) even if it isn't, we won't ever really be able to change.

I'm not sure which is more depressing!