NEW: Donald Trump Walks Back Tax Plan, Saying 'It's Going to Be Negotiated' (Tax Increases on Job Creators)

[Bigun]

Everyone knows that business  do not "pay" taxes, they "collect" taxes.
The higher the tax, the higher the cost of the products they sell, and the less likely it is they expand and hire more people, buy new equipment, etc.
Taxing the big corporation at a high rate will never work out.
It never has and it never will.
while not directly raising taxes on the middle class, it has the same effect, because they have to pay more for the goods and services they buy from the "rich".
Guys, this is basic conservative/ Milton Freidman economics.

Yes it is! And the STILL don't get it!

[LonestarDream]

It is deeply disappointing.  Wishing Cruz had stayed in through California.

The minimum wage and now this.  Also see that Thomas Sowell is pushing third party.

Very influential on me because Thomas was always against Trump but for Cruz or other positive identifiable vessel.

FWIW, neither Trump's nor Cruz' tax plans were going to make it.  They were designed to appeal to the "tax conservatives" to help get the nomination.  I think both realized those plans would soften as we moved into the GE.

[LonestarDream]

FWIW, neither Trump's nor Cruz' tax plans were going to make it.  They were designed to appeal to the "tax conservatives" to help get the nomination.  I think both realized those plans would soften as we moved into the GE.

Cruz would have fought for his plan.  The dynamic score of Cruz's plan was awesome.

Taxing receipts is critical in combating the illegal problem.  From memory, more than 10% of the economy is underground.

The distance between Trump and Hillary is closing.

[Fantom]

Ah...but other respected members engage him, so you'll see his posts in any event.

Furthermore, it's not like his forte is posting juvenile sophomoric animated memes, so why ignore him?   

Don't want to see an opposing POV?

No doubt, the ignore feature is for snowflakes.

I can much more pointedly ignore someone with much more satisfaction by...just ignoring them.

Good call, "hidden face playing pocket pool in the dark".

[LonestarDream]

He's already explained it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/politics/donald-trumps-idea-to-cut-national-debt-get-creditors-to-accept-less.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

He is certifiably CRAZY!

Well that was his playbook with The Plaza Hotel.  Trump stated that going in, he KNEW the cash flow would not sustain the high (around $600 million dollar price)

But when his Plaza entity and Casino entities went bankrupt, he hit up the Saudi Prince creditor and all the big banks to write down his debt.

Now Trump has said he wants to write down the national debt.  Hamilton shudders.

Also puts into question 'The full faith and Credit of the The United States' and I could see the democrats impeaching over this 'crime'.  Perhaps many would Republicans would join in.

[Bigun]

Well that was his playbook with The Plaza Hotel.  Trump stated that going in, he KNEW the cash flow would not sustain the high (around $600 million dollar price)

But when his Plaza entity and Casino entities went bankrupt, he hit up the Saudi Prince creditor and all the big banks to write down his debt.

Now Trump has said he wants to write down the national debt.  Hamilton shudders.

Also puts into question 'The full faith and Credit of the The United States' and I could see the democrats impeaching over this 'crime'.  Perhaps many would Republicans would join in.

And they would be fully justified in doing so!

[MACVSOG68]

Cruz would have fought for his plan.  The dynamic score of Cruz's plan was awesome.

Taxing receipts is critical in combating the illegal problem.  From memory, more than 10% of the economy is underground.

The distance between Trump and Hillary is closing.

The dynamic impact of the Cruz plan would still be near a $1 trillion shortfall even if the economy could turn around as estimated and recover the $27+ trillion reduction to the government through the new 16% VAT.  The biggest issue I see is giving congress an additional authority to collect trillions in value added taxes while still having 16th Amendment authority to collect income taxes.  But you're right, the underground economy is bad and growing.

BTW, I'm no fan of the income tax, but I can't see Congress ever giving up the greatest power they have, to reward, to punish, and to influence behavior through the income tax authority.

[Fantom]

I just heard Trump.  He's actually sitting there and negotiating with himself, saying he'll probably have to raise taxes on the wealthy.  He's under no illusion that he could be successful in holding down taxes on the wealthy. 

Some negotiator.

At least obama told the republicans to not call his bluff.. and McConel and the other orange punk in te House  did not.

[Fantom]

The dynamic impact of the Cruz plan would still be near a $1 trillion shortfall even if the economy could turn around as estimated and recover the $27+ trillion reduction to the government through the new 16% VAT.  The biggest issue I see is giving congress an additional authority to collect trillions in value added taxes while still having 16th Amendment authority to collect income taxes.  But you're right, the underground economy is bad and growing.

BTW, I'm no fan of the income tax, but I can't see Congress ever giving up the greatest power they have, to reward, to punish, and to influence behavior through the income tax authority.

Well, you have trumps penchant to default on debt going for you anyways.

[LonestarDream]

And they would be fully justified in doing so!

Just heard on Kudlow that Trump only wants to pay only 80 cents on the dollar for the national debt.

Worth a listen on Kudlow's show yesterday. 

That is Venezuela type stuff.  The US forward cost of capital would be astronomical after this move.

Remember, Trump's bankers had a hugh and series incentive to write down his debt-- He was a unique salesman to put together the next real estate syndicate.

With sovereign debt, this tactic would be a disaster.







 

[Bigun]

Just heard on Kudlow that Trump only wants to pay only 80 cents on the dollar for the national debt.

Worth a listen on Kudlow's show yesterday. 

That is Venezuela type stuff.  The US forward cost of capital would be astronomical after this move.

Remember, Trump's bankers had a hugh and series incentive to write down his debt-- He was a unique salesman to put together the next real estate syndicate.

With sovereign debt, this tactic would be a disaster.

It is also PATENTLY unconstitutional! But you already know that!

[MACVSOG68]

Well, you have trumps penchant to default on debt going for you anyways.

In the early stages of a primary, promises flow like a volcanic eruption.  And on the GOP side it's always tax cuts.  Now he has to try to figure out the details of a fiscal plan as the campaign transitions.  I doubt defaulting on the public debt will impress too many creditors.

[Fantom]

In the early stages of a primary, promises flow like a volcanic eruption.  And on the GOP side it's always tax cuts.  Now he has to try to figure out the details of a fiscal plan as the campaign transitions.  I doubt defaulting on the public debt will impress too many creditors.

trump is well practiced at defaulting.

[LonestarDream]

I think the number was only 800 billion or so and over many years.

It is Reagan's playbook of the 80s and NEwt's of the 90, because Cruz would have cut spending.

The dynamic impact of the Cruz plan would still be near a $1 trillion shortfall even if the economy could turn around as estimated and recover the $27+ trillion reduction to the government through the new 16% VAT.  The biggest issue I see is giving congress an additional authority to collect trillions in value added taxes while still having 16th Amendment authority to collect income taxes.  But you're right, the underground economy is bad and growing.

BTW, I'm no fan of the income tax, but I can't see Congress ever giving up the greatest power they have, to reward, to punish, and to influence behavior through the income tax authority.

[LonestarDream]

He's already explained it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/politics/donald-trumps-idea-to-cut-national-debt-get-creditors-to-accept-less.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

He is certifiably CRAZY!

There is another fatal flaw in Trump's approach.  Taxing high income earners and capital gains is NOT taxing the rich.  These are the 'would be' wealthy. They will never get there.

This plays DIRECTLY INTO the dems attack on wealth creation.

I am for taxing the rich. Really.  Anyone over a billion in assets gives 4% of their wealth a year, in kind .  Gates, Zuckerberg and Buffet would give stock to the treasury in kind.
The treasury could the sell 3% per year in a program sell so as to not depress the stock price too much.

In my view, that would quickly shut down their demagoging of the issue.

But going after high earners has historically shown to kill the golden goose...

[Mechanicos]

Everyone knows that business  do not "pay" taxes, they "collect" taxes.
The higher the tax, the higher the cost of the products they sell, and the less likely it is they expand and hire more people, buy new equipment, etc.
Taxing the big corporation at a high rate will never work out.
It never has and it never will.
while not directly raising taxes on the middle class, it has the same effect, because they have to pay more for the goods and services they buy from the "rich".
Guys, this is basic conservative/ Milton Freidman economics.

Completely misses the point. Its not about taxing businesses its about taxing the the super rich's wealth generation which is not individual income to them per the lobbyist derived definitions of what is taxable income. Is Hilliary's speaking fees income taxable to her? No, why not, even tho she benefits and controls it? Because its structured thru a "charity" that pays all her bills and covers all her expensiveness.  So instead of getting taxed on her 160K speaking fees for 15 min she pays no personal income tax on it. And her charity has so much expenses (sic) and exemptions it does not pay it either. Thats the kind of stuff hes talking about, not the Income tax we have to deal with.

[Bigun]

No doubt, the ignore feature is for snowflakes.

I can much more pointedly ignore someone with much more satisfaction by...just ignoring them.

Good call, "hidden face playing pocket pool in the dark".

I used to agree with that entirely but months and months on end of the same old tired circular arguments wears you down!

[Bigun]

There is another fatal flaw in Trump's approach.  Taxing high income earners and capital gains is NOT taxing the rich.  These are the 'would be' wealthy. They will never get there.

This plays DIRECTLY INTO the dems attack on wealth creation.

I am for taxing the rich. Really.  Anyone over a billion in assets gives 4% of their wealth a year, in kind .  Gates, Zuckerberg and Buffet would give stock to the treasury in kind.
The treasury could the sell 3% per year in a program sell so as to not depress the stock price too much.

In my view, that would quickly shut down their demagoging of the issue.

But going after high earners has historically shown to kill the golden goose...

Nah! Let's just stoop taxing on the exact WRONG end of the spectrum and tax consumption instead!

[LonestarDream]

Everyone knows that business  do not "pay" taxes, they "collect" taxes.
The higher the tax, the higher the cost of the products they sell, and the less likely it is they expand and hire more people, buy new equipment, etc.
Taxing the big corporation at a high rate will never work out.
It never has and it never will.
while not directly raising taxes on the middle class, it has the same effect, because they have to pay more for the goods and services they buy from the "rich".
Guys, this is basic conservative/ Milton Freidman economics.

Spot on point.

[GrouchoTex]

Completely misses the point. Its not about taxing businesses its about taxing the the super rich's wealth generation which is not individual income to them per the lobbyist derived definitions of what is taxable income. Is Hilliary's speaking fees income taxable to her? No, why not, even tho she benefits and controls it? Because its structured thru a "charity" that pays all her bills and covers all her expensiveness.  So instead of getting taxed on her 160K speaking fees for 15 min she pays no personal income tax on it. And her charity has so much expenses (sic) and exemptions it does not pay it either. Thats the kind of stuff hes talking about, not the Income tax we have to deal with.

Okay, so lets have a simple tax rate with no deductions, subsidies, or loopholes.
Is Trump advocating that?
No, he is not.
So, I am not missing the point.
Rather, I am making the point.
Trump's tax plan does nothing to address the scenario that you have laid out above.

[LonestarDream]

Nah! Let's just stoop taxing on the exact WRONG end of the spectrum and tax consumption instead!

My heart is with you.  But as a throw away tactic, why not REALLY propose to tax the rich to expose their demagoguery?  4% is not big number if the wealthy are GROWING their portfolio 10% per year anyway.

Another key point on the income tax is that we got in 1913-- the last time Americans became deeply infatuated with populism.


I am sure you can agree on that point.

[Mechanicos]

Okay, so lets have a simple tax rate with no deductions, subsidies, or loopholes.
Is Trump advocating that?
No, he is not.
So, I am not missing the point.
Rather, I am making the point.
Trump's tax plan does nothing to address the scenario that you have laid out above.

Real world that has no chance of being passed, but going after hedge funds, fake charities like Gates and Hillary use, hedge funds, special trusts etc is doable.

[Bigun]

My heart is with you.  But as a throw away tactic, why not REALLY propose to tax the rich to expose their demagoguery?  4% is not big number if the wealthy are GROWING their portfolio 10% per year anyway.

Another key point on the income tax is that we got in 1913-- the last time Americans became deeply infatuated with populism.


I am sure you can agree on that point.

Yeah! Woodrow Wilson was the second worst president in the history of the country!  Gave us the 17th amendment as well!

[GrouchoTex]

@Mechanicos

Define "Super Rich"?

[LonestarDream]

Yeah! Woodrow Wilson was the second worst president in the history of the country!  Gave us the 17th amendment as well!

I was thinking that too.  GLad you made the point.

Still am 'Trump Realist', but may have to rethink that.

Especially if Trump gets into a competition with Hillary and Bern to see who can move to the left the fastest.