The Return of Trickle-Down

The CEO-elect Trump has released his tax reform plan that will “reduce taxes across-the-board, especially for working and middle-income Americans”.
There's just one little problem.
trump-tax.jpg

First and foremost, Trump’s income tax reform is a simplification: he wants to cut down the number of tax bands from seven to three. But simplifying is not necessarily the same as reducing taxes. As this graph demonstrates, some taxpayers would definitely benefit from Trump’s tax reform – especially those at the higher end of the income scale. There are others, however, who would see their tax rates go up. Especially those on lower incomes.

The current income tax bands range from 10% and 15% at the lower end of the scale over 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% in the middle to the top band of 40%. Under the Trump plan, only three tax bands would remain: 12%, 25% and 33%.

This would be good news for everyone currently in the top two brackets (35% and 40%). These taxpayers would see their effective rate drop down to 33%, by 2 and 7 percentage points respectively. Conversely, the simplification would bad news for the taxpayers in the lowest bracket (10%). These would see their effective tax rate go up by 2 percentage points, to 12%.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

An old Chinese observation and we are the sparrows who have to probe the horse pucky to find edible morsels.

The tax code is very complex because it benefits the rich and the corporations to have it that way. There are lots of loopholes and plenty of ambiguity to make tax lawyers rich working for the Wealthers - working for us too because these costs are almost always tax deductible.

Reagan had to raise taxes several times because his Milton Friedman model didn't work out as advertised. Trump probably won't bother unless the bond underwriters see their businesses start to lose big time.

up
0 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

When people talk about Clinton's having left office with a "modest budget surplus" they forget that he should have have left with a very large one, what with Reagan's many increases in taxes and fees, George H.W. Bush's infamous tax increase and ending "welfare as we know it."

up
0 users have voted.
Lookout's picture

60 votes in the senate? Or do they plan to do away with that? With 48 or 9 senate votes won't the dems block this? Or have they sold out to that degree?

up
0 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

They can use budget reconciliation, just like the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/introduction-to-budget-reconciliation

up
0 users have voted.

It's true right now like it was back then. The old devils are at it again. When I say devil you know who I mean these animals in the dark malicious politicians with nefarious schemes charlatans and crooked cops. - 'Old Devils' William Elliot Whitmore

things differently. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamacare-was-not-passed-using-b...

According to the article linked above, Senate Rule 22 can be used to break a filibuster. I don't know much about Senate rules, but a description of Rule 22 are here, along with links to sources that explain it:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm

up
0 users have voted.

How many people will gain or lose how much. Percentages don't matter - people matter. In 1982 I was in the lowest income bracket and thanks to Reagan's "tax cut" my taxes (including FICA) doubled. If I gad been 1 of 10 oh well, but I was 1 of 10 million.
Back in the mid eighties (when the NYT was trustworthy, at least sort of) they ran a poll: "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" 2/3 of Americans said "yes", so they asked the IRS. 2/3were poorer, "but we got a tax cut and the stock market is booming!"
Damn lotus eaters, too lazy to count.

up
0 users have voted.

On to Biden since 1973

doingbusinessas's picture

They didn't realize how bad it had gotten, as wages went stagnate slowly. 30 yrs down the line we know we got the short end of the manure.

It's a club and we are not members of it.

DBA

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.

BTW Larry Summers is in that picture. Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, and President Obama appointed him to head the National Economic Council.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

link

Analysing Trump's shocking victory, professor Cornel West maintains that it represents the "desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order". "It was the lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating," West explains, that has brought neoliberalism to its knees.

But is neoliberalism really on its knees?

The owner of a vast business empire, President-elect Trump is, more than anything else, a businessman. Not having one iota of political experience, he ran on an anti-politics ticket in which his business acumen was touted as a serious qualification for the presidency. Indeed, he promised to run the government like a business enterprise.

Trump's cabinet picks suggest that, perhaps for once, he was not misleading the public. Talking neoliberal-speak, their rhetoric is uncannily familiar: privatisation, deregulation, capital enhancement, and entrepreneurialism.

The soon-to-be-Secretary of Education, Republican billionaire Betsy DeVos, for example, has been instrumental in deregulating Michigan's charter schools. Not unlike the privatisation of prisons, in Michigan, around 80 percent of these schools are currently run by private companies.

Similarly, Tom Price, Trump's pick for secretary of health and human services, wants to privatise healthcare reform, allowing "flexibility" while instituting dramatic changes to the tax code.

West is consequently wrong on this particular front. What we are likely to witness is not the end of, but rather a trumped-up version of, neoliberalism.

If, in the Barack Obama years, we saw neoliberalism intersect with a variety of progressive projects, such as marriage equality, in the coming years Americans will likely be subjected to a convergence between ethnonationalism and neoliberalism.

Nothing new

Actually, this convergence is nothing new. One has only to look at Israel, where since the mid-1980s neoliberalism has been thriving in conjunction with ethnonationalism and a colonial settler project.

West's claim that hyper-nationalism, or even neo-fascism, will ultimately usher out our neoliberalism era, therefore, doesn't ring true to people coming from my neck of the woods.

Over the years, we have witnessed how the Israeli government has effectively mobilised hyper-nationalism to further entrench neoliberalism, by harnessing hate towards Palestinians with the hope of deflecting and covering up the devastating repercussions that neoliberal economic policies have had on large segments of its Jewish citizenry.

Israel is also living proof that a country can create walls for certain "undesirables" while allowing capital to flow unhindered.
It would be a mistake, however, to understand neoliberalism as merely a set of economic policies. Rather, it is a regime of truth and value that construes all aspects of our world as business enterprises; even human beings are increasingly transformed into a kind of "human capital".
In other words, under neoliberalism, we increasingly relate to ourselves as a resource in which we must invest in order to increase our value over time. In such a regime, only capital-enhancing subjects are worthy and only human capital that enhances the credit of the nation, now construed as a business enterprise, will thrive. This is precisely Trump's dream for America.

up
0 users have voted.