Exclusive: Trump, GOP to cut top rate to 35 percent
Source: Axios
President Trump and Republican leaders plan to cut the top tax rate for the wealthiest Americans to 35 percent and dramatically reduce taxes on big and small businesses, according to details leaked to Axios.
-snip-
The big change: The GOP leaders and the White House plan to cut the top tax rate for small businesses known as "pass-throughs" from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. (Currently small businesses pay the same tax rates as individuals, and this puts them at a disadvantage to larger corporations, which pay lower rates.)
-snip-
Top individual tax rate cut from 39.6 to 35. The current seven income tax brackets collapsed to three, as part of simplification. (Axios hasn't obtained the other two rates.)
Axios can confirm that the Big Six agreed to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. That key detail leaked last night to the Washington Post. (Trump has said he wants the corporate rate to be 15 percent.)
-snip-
Read more: https://www.axios.com/exclusive-trump-gop-to-cut-top-rate-to-35-percent-2488858973.html
TexasBushwhacker
(20,202 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)run a kool aid stand on the side of the road, let alone this.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Roy Rolling
(6,918 posts)Cutting taxes will magically result in more taxes being collected? Except that it never works out like that and government services are cut.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)They_Live
(3,236 posts)what a liar.
Wounded Bear
(58,670 posts)jmowreader
(50,560 posts)"No wall or other fortification shall be built on the US-Mexican border if the top income tax rate is not at least 42 percent."
SergeStorms
(19,204 posts)the same as it was during the Republican Eisenhower administration. 92%
That's right, ninety two percent!
If it was good enough for Eisenhower's multi-millionaires, it should be fair enough for Trump's multi-billionaires.
I think that's more than fair.
jmowreader
(50,560 posts)On edit: During the Eisenhower Administration there were far more deductions and credits than we have now. To make a high tax rate palatable you'd have to bring most of them back.
DFW
(54,408 posts)The more here are, the more they will be abused. Today, 90% marginal income tax is a non-starter. It will just lead to capital flight and American jobs moving offshore. All one has to do is keep rates at reasonable levels, and make them apply as broadly as possible. There is no need at all to lower the top rate from 39.6% to 35%. Just make sure there are less deductions that make it possible to pay 15% if you really make $10 million, and take care not to make the highest rates look like a "jealousy tax." Whether it's a $75,000 threshold or a $10 million threshold, any time a state takes more than half what someone earns, they tend to find ways to hide it.
jmowreader
(50,560 posts)What would a flat 25 percent on all income, no deductions whatsoever, on anyone whose gross income is $1 million or above?
I like loopholes because they force the rich to employ people, donate to charity, etc,, to exploit them. They aren't free money. But if you want to get rid of them, set the top rate high enough we're still getting as big a percentage from the rich as we get from their employees.
DFW
(54,408 posts)There are plenty of others, though, that are only on the books to enable top rate payers to pay less. As someone who has been affected by cancer in the family WAY too many times, I'm all for deductions to things like cancer research and care (for example) up to any sum. Or to universities for scholarship funds, stuff like that. As for a flat tax on income over a million, if there's a way to pay 25% on marginal income over $1 million, I'll bet there are plenty of people in that category that would like to hear bout it.
Igel
(35,320 posts)On the other hand, it applied to the first $1000 in income and even if you had low income you still paid federal income tax. None of this "the bottom 40% pays virtually nothing".
If it was good enough during the Democratic Truman administration it's good now, too. Because we all want to be in the 1950s.
(And there were fewer deductions available to lower income earners. Back in the '50s there were all kinds of nifty tax shelters for the rich. It's why the rates keep changing, but the amount of income tax tends to stay the same. More recently the lower deciles have paid significantly less federal income tax as a proportional of all income tax paid and the higher income earners much more. You get bumps and slumps in the amount each subgroup of taxpayers pay when there are changes, but they tend to go away as tax strategies are adjusted to accommodate the new rates. No one group gets to decide "fair" for the other 80%.
(In other words, it pays not to cherry pick one fact because reality in the '50s was composed of a bunch of interrelated facts that hung together.)
kimbutgar
(21,163 posts)Oh hello no!
He's for the working man just like his bullshit malarkey..
BumRushDaShow
(129,103 posts)Back to this regressive bullshit again.
It would probably end up being 15%, 25%, 35%, where they may claim anyone "under" a certain income won't have to pay at all, but they will eliminate all the deductions that lower income folks rely on (but keep the ones for the wealthy) and thus anyone in the 10% bracket will ultimately be increased to 15% & the 15%ers to 25%. Meanwhile the 39%ers get dropped to 35% and with additional loopholes that will be quietly inserted, will drop them down to an effective 15% (because that is how they roll).
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)to large corporations. Cut corporate tax rate even more to give big corporations an even bigger advantage. Disgusting manipulation.
bluestarone
(16,976 posts)the biggest debtor nation coming AGAIN and who the fuck pays for it?