Trump promises 'major middle-income tax cut' with GOP majority

[mystery-ak]

Trump promises 'major middle-income tax cut' with GOP majority
by Nihal Krishan
 | November 15, 2019 02:54 PM

President Trump announced on Friday that he's planning legislation for a middle-income tax cut if the Republican Party wins back the House of Representatives.

“We’re going to be doing a very major middle-income tax cut, mostly devoted to middle income, who have really been big beneficiaries of the tax cut we did [in 2017], which was the largest in the history of our country," Trump said during an event on healthcare.

"But we’re doing a major tax cut for the middle income, and that’ll be subject obviously to taking over the House because the Democrats like tax increases, not tax cuts," he said.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/trump-promises-major-middle-income-tax-cut-with-gop-majority

[mystery-ak]

Now he's bribing voters................./s

[Smokin Joe]

I just want my Form 2106 employee expense deductions BACK!

[roamer_1]

I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today...

[Applewood]

Oh yes.  Now the phony baloney promises start again.  Where were Trump and the Republicans when they had both the presidency and both houses of congress and after they passed that tax tweak when they promised there would be more to come?  And what about those other promises like repealing Obamacare and curbing the tide of illegals and so-called refugees?  Now that the Republicans lost the house and elections are coming next year, they are all making the same promises they made in 2016 and even before then.  The same promises they haven't kept for years. 

Sorry guys.  You had your chance many times and you did nothing.  If you all go down in defeat next year and beyond -- and the Democrats get both houses of congress and the presidency -- it will be all your fault.  I'm done being a sucker.

[LMAO]

Cut the spending!!!!

[Applewood]

Cut the spending!!!!

Never happen.

[libertybele]

I though he already 'promised' a tax-cut. 

[Snarknado]

Any generic reduction of rates will disproportionately go to the wealthy and won't win any votes. Retroactively indexing the unchanged-for-30-years social security tax thresholds would win a boatload of senior votes without putting a dime in the pockets of the wealthy. It should be a complete no-brainer.

[Bigun]

Any generic reduction of rates will disproportionately go to the wealthy and won't win any votes. Retroactively indexing the unchanged-for-30-years social security tax thresholds would win a boatload of senior votes without putting a dime in the pockets of the wealthy. It should be a complete no-brainer.

Getting rid of the Marxist income tax scheme entirely and replacing it with the Fairtax (HR25) would put more money in everyone's pockets and, for the first time ever, tax the truly wealthy in a fair way.  http://fairtax.org

[Mesaclone]

So many of you utterly fail to understand the politics of legislation. Just because something is a good idea...the fair tax for example (and that is a GREAT idea)...does not mean it has ANY chance of being passed by majorities in both Houses of Congress. And since that is the ONLY way a new tax rate or system can be put in place, a president is limited to the parameters of what is possible. Yes, persuasion and the power of the pulpit can expand that parameter...some...but it cannot force a new paradigm into place. THAT kind of change takes grass roots MAJORITY support...which does not currently exist on tax issues.

Further, the president has already pushed the limits of what is legislatively possible by his large reductions in corporate, business and personal taxes...and his new middle class cut plan will push that boundary even further. The concept that this is "overdue" or not "enough" signifies the ignorance of those pushing the idiocy that President Trump...or ANY Republican president...could somehow unilaterally impose a tax system. Well, guess what? It doesn't work that way, so wake the heck up and give the man full credit for getting MORE in tax cuts than anyone thought legitimately possible.

Again, anyone sniping at the President for not getting enough tax cuts or reforms is simply broadcasting that they have no understanding of how our legislative system works...or...they simply enjoy complaining about successes that don't achieve total perfection. Get a clue...our system of checks and balances is not set up for one side or the other to achieve the "perfection" of their ideological goals...its set up to force consensus. If you can't accept that, you don't really believe in a Republic.

Spending is another issue altogether, and quite frankly spending cuts cannot be achieved until the people of the nation...collectively...determine that our future requires them. Politicians cannot override a strong consensus of the populace and, sadly, damn few in the populace believe in cuts right now...everyone thinks the OTHER guys stuff should be cut, but we all have our "golden calves" that we consider untouchable. President's and leaders on the Right (and in the Center) will have to concertedly work to educate the public on the need for budgetary cuts...but until that happens...it is not politically possible for a solitary Executive to impose the cuts we want and the nation needs. Attempting to do so would simply put the Dems in charge of both Houses and the Presidency and make the situation much, much worse.

[Mesaclone]

I though he already 'promised' a tax-cut. 

Yes, he promised and delivered a tremendous tax cut that has launched economic growth...and which, ironically, has increased federal tax revenues.

[Smokin Joe]

So many of you utterly fail to understand the politics of legislation. Just because something is a good idea...the fair tax for example (and that is a GREAT idea)...does not mean it has ANY chance of being passed by majorities in both Houses of Congress. And since that is the ONLY way a new tax rate or system can be put in place, a president is limited to the parameters of what is possible. Yes, persuasion and the power of the pulpit can expand that parameter...some...but it cannot force a new paradigm into place. THAT kind of change takes grass roots MAJORITY support...which does not currently exist on tax issues.

Further, the president has already pushed the limits of what is legislatively possible by his large reductions in corporate, business and personal taxes...and his new middle class cut plan will push that boundary even further. The concept that this is "overdue" or not "enough" signifies the ignorance of those pushing the idiocy that President Trump...or ANY Republican president...could somehow unilaterally impose a tax system. Well, guess what? It doesn't work that way, so wake the heck up and give the man full credit for getting MORE in tax cuts than anyone thought legitimately possible.

Again, anyone sniping at the President for not getting enough tax cuts or reforms is simply broadcasting that they have no understanding of how our legislative system works...or...they simply enjoy complaining about successes that don't achieve total perfection. Get a clue...our system of checks and balances is not set up for one side or the other to achieve the "perfection" of their ideological goals...its set up to force consensus. If you can't accept that, you don't really believe in a Republic.

Seriously?

My tax cut? I lost the mileage/vehicle expense deductions I was formerly able to take (for roughly 40 years) while in someone else's employ, for miles traveled that were essential to doing my job. I lost the deduction for per diem for food and lodging while on remote temporary worksites.

This year I will be paying taxes on over $20,000.00 in expenses I had to shell out to be employed, because it is the type of job you can't do if you aren't there.

 

[Applewood]

@Mesaclone

So it's the voters'  fault that all their lofty promises are never fulfilled.  We are too demanding, eh?

Bottom line is this:  Trump and the Republicans make plenty of promises they have no intention of keeping.  And right now they have a convenient excuse -- they don't own the house.  It's really easy to make promises when you aren't in a position to keep them.  This is actually a pattern with Trump and his party.  Make promises.  Don't keep them.  Then blame the Democrats. 

I get that when it comes to legislation, there is going to have to be compromise and often there is failure.  But beyond a few half-hearted attempts, Republicans don't even try.  About the only thing they were able to get through congress was so-called  bipartisan tax reform.  But that wasn't compromise; that was capitulation.  Might have benefitted a few businesses, but for most people, it did nothing and may have even cost them more in taxes.  And again, what happened to the promise after that bill was passed that there would be more tax relief?  Didn't hear a peep till now -- election time and when the house is under Democrat rule. 

No, I as a voter won't take the blame for Republican laziness and  broken promises.  This BS has been going on for years -- even before Trump became president.  If the Republicans lose the senate and/or the presidency, they have only themselves to blame. 

[Snarknado]

Tax cuts aren't high on my wishlist. All I'm saying is that if you're going to propose a middle-class tax cut, it's just common sense that you might as well propose one that will actually get you some votes and can't be attacked as a giveaway to the wealthy.

[Smokin Joe]

Tax cuts aren't high on my wishlist. All I'm saying is that if you're going to propose a middle-class tax cut, it's just common sense that you might as well propose one that will actually get you some votes and can't be attacked as a giveaway to the wealthy.

The tax cuts were not tax cuts for so many who incur expenses as employees or as an integral part of their jobs, which often are not reimbursed by the employer. For instance, virtually every delivery vehicle carrying food to customers is privately owned by the employee, and the expense of operating and maintaining that vehicle comes back on the employee. Often, any delivery fee which those employees get is taxed as income, but those selfsame employees cannot deduct either the standard mileage deduction or actual expenses for something that they would not be employed if they did not provide that means of transportation.
Another example is for people who work on temporary job sites geographically removed from home. (As a geologist, I may have to travel 1200 miles (one way) to a drill site, stay there for a few weeks, and incur expenses doing both as part of my employ). I can't do the job if I am not there. But I can't take the Form 2106 deductions for mileage or per diem any more, either.

This is where the removal of those Form 2106 deductions indicates the tone deafness of those who removed them, calling that 'simplification'. Yeah, it is simpler, the government has its hands deeper in your pockets than ever, taxing money you shell out for expenses which cannot be avoided and which are integral to producing income.

BOHICA.

[Chosen Daughter]

Seriously?

My tax cut? I lost the mileage/vehicle expense deductions I was formerly able to take (for roughly 40 years) while in someone else's employ, for miles traveled that were essential to doing my job. I lost the deduction for per diem for food and lodging while on remote temporary worksites.

This year I will be paying taxes on over $20,000.00 in expenses I had to shell out to be employed, because it is the type of job you can't do if you aren't there.

That is wrong.  I know many people who have lost the mortgage tax credit also.

[skeeter]

That is wrong.  I know many people who have lost the mortgage tax credit also.

Those people need to take the matter up with the appropriate taxing authorities, the counties & the local people they vote into office, and not count on the federal government to bail them out.

[libertybele]

 We actually for the first time in fifteen years actually got a small amount of money back last year.

[Mesaclone]

The tax cuts were not tax cuts for so many who incur expenses as employees or as an integral part of their jobs, which often are not reimbursed by the employer. For instance, virtually every delivery vehicle carrying food to customers is privately owned by the employee, and the expense of operating and maintaining that vehicle comes back on the employee. Often, any delivery fee which those employees get is taxed as income, but those selfsame employees cannot deduct either the standard mileage deduction or actual expenses for something that they would not be employed if they did not provide that means of transportation.
Another example is for people who work on temporary job sites geographically removed from home. (As a geologist, I may have to travel 1200 miles (one way) to a drill site, stay there for a few weeks, and incur expenses doing both as part of my employ). I can't do the job if I am not there. But I can't take the Form 2106 deductions for mileage or per diem any more, either.

This is where the removal of those Form 2106 deductions indicates the tone deafness of those who removed them, calling that 'simplification'. Yeah, it is simpler, the government has its hands deeper in your pockets than ever, taxing money you shell out for expenses which cannot be avoided and which are integral to producing income.

BOHICA.

That's a great point, smokinjoe, and it sounds like something the President AND the party would likely support. Not everyone got a tax cut....but MANY did including the majority of middle class Americans... and many small businesses received cuts as well. More cuts...better aimed at the middle class...is still needed and that's why the President is looking to target these additional cuts in that direction (plus its obviously good politics).

[Applewood]

I broke even last year which is a good thing.  But most of the deductions I used to take are gone.  This year I had to withdraw from my IRA (too soon), so I might end up owing. 

[Applewood]

That's a great point, smokinjoe, and it sounds like something the President AND the party would likely support. Not everyone got a tax cut....but MANY did including the majority of middle class Americans... and many small businesses received cuts as well. More cuts...better aimed at the middle class...is still needed and that's why the President is looking to target these additional cuts in that direction (plus its obviously good politics).

I'd like to see the stats on that.  Most people I know got nothing from it.

[Victoria33]

Now he's bribing voters................./s

@mystery-ak

The "middle" tax cut in 2017, goes away, would have to look up the year, maybe next year?  The business tax cut he gave in 2017, is forever.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

The tax cuts were not tax cuts for so many who incur expenses as employees or as an integral part of their jobs, which often are not reimbursed by the employer. For instance, virtually every delivery vehicle carrying food to customers is privately owned by the employee, and the expense of operating and maintaining that vehicle comes back on the employee. Often, any delivery fee which those employees get is taxed as income, but those selfsame employees cannot deduct either the standard mileage deduction or actual expenses for something that they would not be employed if they did not provide that means of transportation.
Another example is for people who work on temporary job sites geographically removed from home. (As a geologist, I may have to travel 1200 miles (one way) to a drill site, stay there for a few weeks, and incur expenses doing both as part of my employ). I can't do the job if I am not there. But I can't take the Form 2106 deductions for mileage or per diem any more, either.

This is where the removal of those Form 2106 deductions indicates the tone deafness of those who removed them, calling that 'simplification'. Yeah, it is simpler, the government has its hands deeper in your pockets than ever, taxing money you shell out for expenses which cannot be avoided and which are integral to producing income.

BOHICA.

Have you talked to anyone about this?

Seems like you should be able to get a job with a company (say, one owned by you with only one employee) which reimburses for expenses.  If nothing else, even if the company couldn't write off the expense, at least you could(should?) avoid payroll tax on that part like an S-corp.

Not my field, but I'll bet there's an angle if you pay a few bucks to find it.

[Snarknado]

I'd like to see the stats on that.  Most people I know got nothing from it.

If you had more than 2 personal exemptions or you itemized deductions, there's a good chance you paid more. It was an OK deal for couples who were already taking the std. deduction, but most of those were probably already in the 10% or 15% bracket anyway so maybe saved a few hundred $ at best...