Is this is a good direction?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/eco...index.html

Hell yes it is good. How can the moronic democrats fight this? If they choose to do so, they just lost 2018.

---

Is this is a good direction?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/eco...index.html

I don't like any tax plan designed to lighten the load on the highest of earners. If we're going to stick with an income tax, it should have graduated brackets with the lowest rates for those in the middle class, second lowest to those in poverty, second highest to those in the "upper middle/high income" fringe group, then the highest (by far) to those making over $200k/yr.

Oh, and find a way to charge companies that move their HQs offshore for tax sheltering all they would have owed if they'd stayed domestic--and then some. How about an exit tax of 50% of that year's revenue for corporations that move their headquarters out of the US, and an ongoing 25% tax premium on all revenue (not just profit) to companies that conduct a significant chunk of their business in America while headquartering overseas?

---

Is this is a good direction?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/eco...index.html

I don't like any tax plan designed to lighten the load on the highest of earners. If we're going to stick with an income tax, it should have graduated brackets with the lowest rates for those in the middle class, second lowest to those in poverty, second highest to those in the "upper middle/high income" fringe group, then the highest (by far) to those making over $200k/yr.

Oh, and find a way to charge companies that move their HQs offshore for tax sheltering all they would have owed if they'd stayed domestic--and then some. How about an exit tax of 50% for corporations that move their headquarters out of the US, and an ongoing 15% tax premium to companies that conduct a significant chunk of their business in America while headquartering overseas?

C'mon. You don't think companies would find loopholes? They are a lot smarter than the federal government.

---

Funny Bernie is appalled by the death tax. Figured he would be looking out for himself with his 3 houses and 175K car he will be handing down to his kids.

---

I don't like any tax plan designed to lighten the load on the highest of earners. If we're going to stick with an income tax, it should have graduated brackets with the lowest rates for those in the middle class, second lowest to those in poverty, second highest to those in the "upper middle/high income" fringe group, then the highest (by far) to those making over $200k/yr.

Oh, and find a way to charge companies that move their HQs offshore for tax sheltering all they would have owed if they'd stayed domestic--and then some. How about an exit tax of 50% for corporations that move their headquarters out of the US, and an ongoing 15% tax premium to companies that conduct a significant chunk of their business in America while headquartering overseas?

C'mon. You don't think companies would find loopholes? They are a lot smarter than the federal government.

---

Funny Bernie is appalled by the death tax. Figured he would be looking out for himself with his 3 houses and 175K car he will be handing down to his kids.

"Any company that moves its corporate headquarters from the United States to a foreign country shall be required to pay an exit tax of 50% on all gross revenue for that year. Any foreign company that takes in more than 25% of its gross revenue from the United States shall be required to pay a 25% tax on all revenues originating in the United States."

Doesn't seem hard to me. Write it in two sentences, plain text, with zero loopholes.

---

C'mon. You don't think companies would find loopholes? They are a lot smarter than the federal government.

---

Funny Bernie is appalled by the death tax. Figured he would be looking out for himself with his 3 houses and 175K car he will be handing down to his kids.

"Any company that moves its corporate headquarters from the United States to a foreign country shall be required to pay an exit tax of 50% on all gross revenue for that year. Any foreign company that takes in more than 25% of its gross revenue from the United States shall be required to pay a 25% tax on all revenues originating in the United States."

Doesn't seem hard to me. Write it in two sentences, plain text, with zero loopholes.

"Corporate headquarters" could easily be manipulated. I'm not saying I disagree with you that they shouldn't be taxed, but saying they would find loopholes no matter how "plain text" it is.

---

"Any company that moves its corporate headquarters from the United States to a foreign country shall be required to pay an exit tax of 50% on all gross revenue for that year. Any foreign company that takes in more than 25% of its gross revenue from the United States shall be required to pay a 25% tax on all revenues originating in the United States."

Doesn't seem hard to me. Write it in two sentences, plain text, with zero loopholes.

"Corporate headquarters" could easily be manipulated. I'm not saying I disagree with you that they shouldn't be taxed, but saying they would find loopholes no matter how "plain text" it is.

If "corporate headquarters" is manipulated in such a way that they stay in the US, cool. The goal here isn't to be punitive, it's to make corporations think twice about getting a major price-fixing loophole built into law for them (Walgreens) then running overseas shortly thereafter so they can milk their new loophole and not pay taxes on it (Walgreens).

---

Is this is a good direction?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/eco...index.html

I don't like any tax plan designed to lighten the load on the highest of earners. If we're going to stick with an income tax, it should have graduated brackets with the lowest rates for those in the middle class, second lowest to those in poverty, second highest to those in the "upper middle/high income" fringe group, then the highest (by far) to those making over $200k/yr.

Oh, and find a way to charge companies that move their HQs offshore for tax sheltering all they would have owed if they'd stayed domestic--and then some. How about an exit tax of 50% of that year's revenue for corporations that move their headquarters out of the US, and an ongoing 25% tax premium on all revenue (not just profit) to companies that conduct a significant chunk of their business in America while headquartering overseas?

I think what we'll see as this gets debated is an added 4th bracket or a higher percentage in the top bracket. For me, I see this plan as a win-win as it addresses most aspects. I'm not for letting corporate completely off the hook, but we've seen what happens when you hit major corporation hard in the tax realm. American bases should have some type of incentive and overseas should have a penalty. Perhaps a lower tax bill can even the playing field and spark more growth in the US.

Overall I see this plan as an excellent foundation moving forward. Nice balance of give and take.

---

Doubling the standard deduction and increasing the child tax credit will make the economy absolutely explode.

---

Is this is a good direction?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/eco...index.html

I don't like any tax plan designed to lighten the load on the highest of earners. If we're going to stick with an income tax, it should have graduated brackets with the lowest rates for those in the middle class, second lowest to those in poverty, second highest to those in the "upper middle/high income" fringe group, then the highest (by far) to those making over $200k/yr.

Oh, and find a way to charge companies that move their HQs offshore for tax sheltering all they would have owed if they'd stayed domestic--and then some. How about an exit tax of 50% of that year's revenue for corporations that move their headquarters out of the US, and an ongoing 25% tax premium on all revenue (not just profit) to companies that conduct a significant chunk of their business in America while headquartering overseas?

Just tell me, what's wrong with letting people keep what they earn? We didn't even have an income tax before 1913 (The 16th amendment) yet we still had roads, bridges, railroads, the Military, universities, etc.... The problem today is too many free loaders living off the system

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

I don't like any tax plan designed to lighten the load on the highest of earners. If we're going to stick with an income tax, it should have graduated brackets with the lowest rates for those in the middle class, second lowest to those in poverty, second highest to those in the "upper middle/high income" fringe group, then the highest (by far) to those making over $200k/yr.

Oh, and find a way to charge companies that move their HQs offshore for tax sheltering all they would have owed if they'd stayed domestic--and then some. How about an exit tax of 50% of that year's revenue for corporations that move their headquarters out of the US, and an ongoing 25% tax premium on all revenue (not just profit) to companies that conduct a significant chunk of their business in America while headquartering overseas?

Just tell me, what's wrong with letting people keep what they earn? We didn't even have an income tax before 1913 (The 16th amendment) yet we still had roads, bridges, railroads, the Military, universities, etc.... The problem today is too many free loaders living off the system

Sometimes this thought gets mixed up in the belief that more taxes equals lower national debt so why not pick on the wealthiest. (not how I see it)

---

Doubling the standard deduction and increasing the child tax credit will make the economy absolutely explode.

Yes, but it has the potential to make inflation explode right along with it.

I don't like any tax plan designed to lighten the load on the highest of earners. If we're going to stick with an income tax, it should have graduated brackets with the lowest rates for those in the middle class, second lowest to those in poverty, second highest to those in the "upper middle/high income" fringe group, then the highest (by far) to those making over $200k/yr.

Oh, and find a way to charge companies that move their HQs offshore for tax sheltering all they would have owed if they'd stayed domestic--and then some. How about an exit tax of 50% of that year's revenue for corporations that move their headquarters out of the US, and an ongoing 25% tax premium on all revenue (not just profit) to companies that conduct a significant chunk of their business in America while headquartering overseas?

Just tell me, what's wrong with letting people keep what they earn? We didn't even have an income tax before 1913 (The 16th amendment) yet we still had roads, bridges, railroads, the Military, universities, etc.... The problem today is too many free loaders living off the system

This is why I strongly, strongly, strongly prefer a flat consumption tax for individuals. Say what you want about it being unfair to the lowest income bracket, I haven't seen too many people roll up to Food Lion in a Bentley, and I haven't seen all that many people get off a bus and walk onto a Mercedes Benz lot. People overwhelmingly spend to (or above) their means, so if someone making six figures wants to "game the system" by eating ramen noodles, drinking tap water and buying a third-hand Taurus off of Craigslist, then more power to them.

If we're going to rely on income tax, then it seems ridiculous to me that we would be asked to bend over backwards so the wealthiest individuals can keep more of their money while the rest of us keep the government running.

---

OK, tell me this, How is taxing somebody $1 more than you affect you? It doesn't....
You get no tangible benefit from it.......
We will still have the services we need no matter what

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

OK, tell me this, How is taxing somebody $1 more than you affect you? It doesn't....
You get no tangible benefit from it.......
We will still have the services we need no matter what

What you just said makes absolutely no sense...

---

Fair Tax == problem solved.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Quit with NFL owners welfare would be a good start.

---

Fair Tax == problem solved.

This is as close to reality as my imaginary tax scheme will ever come. And if this were to ever come into being, I'd be totally ok with it.

---

This really is just it, isn't it. We get so caught up on what the wealthy people are doing, we really should just focus on building our own wealth. And while I think $200k plus is a lot of money, they really do get screwed in the current tax bracket. My father makes over $200k and he pays more in taxes than I earn in a year. He doesn't have a very lavish lifestyle and I don't think it's fair for him to be paying close to half of his income in taxes because the system considers him "wealthy". What's the point in making the jump from $100k a year to $200k? It just works to keep the middle class down and prevent them from climbing the ranks into the true upper class through gradual wealth building. Despite what anyone will tell you on how to build wealth for your retirement, the only reliable way to do so is through aggressive investments and the mindset to use money to create more money as opposed to using money as a limited allocation to be used towards a lifestyle.

Fair tax is simple, it's fair, the wealthiest will pay more in taxes just by the magic of percentages. It'll all work out in the end.

---

Poor Steve Mnuchin. I've watched him on two news programs this morning which are hosted by former democrat operatives masquerading as journalists (Chuck Todd and George Stephanopolous) explaining the tax reform proposal. It's downright hostile. Had I not known better, I would have thought Todd was doing a Rachel Maddow impression.

---

Poor Steve Mnuchin. I've watched him on two news programs this morning which are hosted by former democrat operatives masquerading as journalists (Chuck Todd and George Stephanopolous) explaining the tax reform proposal. It's downright hostile. Had I not known better, I would have thought Todd was doing a Rachel Maddow impression.

All 3 major broadcast channels have painful liberal biases. CNN is unwatchable. MSNBC was never watchable in the first place. Fox News remains Fox News. It's harder and harder to find unbiased news these days--even Reuters is starting to lean left.

---

Americans Spend More on Taxes Than Food and Clothing Combined

Americans on average spent more on taxes in 2016 than they did on food and clothing combined, according to data released this week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ter...11-4-years

This is ridiculous.  We don't raise enough money in taxes to pay for all the stuff WE insist the government buy. 

The problem isn't taxes.  It's SPENDING.  Any tax "reform" that causes us to go further into debt is IRRESPONSIBLE.  We have to cut SPENDING.

---