Lion of the Blogosphere

Trump Tax Plan

Link to the Donald Trump Tax Plan.

Trump’s “plan” is apparently to lower everybody’s rates, which sounds like standard Republican pro-rich pro-big-business fiscally irresponsible tax policy.

Trump also proposes a foreign tax repatriation holiday with a rate of 10%, which seems to me like rewarding corporations for their previous bad behavior in keeping the money overseas in the first place in hopes that eventually pro-big-business Republicans would give them a tax holiday.

Trump also proposes to end the “death tax” which is a huge giveaway to the richest Americans.

Trump talks about eliminating deductions, but the two biggest deductions, for home mortgage interest and charitable deductions, will remain.

On the positive side, he proposes: “An end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. Corporations will no longer be allowed to defer taxes on income earned abroad, but the foreign tax credit will remain in place because no company should face double taxation.” That closes a big loophole.

I also think that the 0% marginal rate for low incomes is a good idea as well.

But overall, I am disappointed with the Trump Tax Plan. Trump claims that the tax plan is revenue neutral because he’s going to be eliminating so many loopholes and deductions (and it’s an absolutely great idea to eliminate loopholes and deductions), but with all of the rates being lowered and the estate tax being abolished, that sounds very suspicious. Furthermore, we have a budget deficit, so a responsible tax plan would raise taxes rather than be revenue netural.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

September 28, 2015 at 12:07 PM

Posted in Politics, Taxes

86 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. He really has no clue with our tax system. Will he be ending deductions for those who are self-employed?

    I look at Meriprolestan’s tax system, symbolic of the gigantic mess, that it made itself in the 1st place, which has yet to unravel.


    September 28, 2015 at 12:31 PM

    • He really has no clue with our tax system.

      Right, a guy with $10 billion who has been in the real estate business for 50 years has no clue about taxes but an at best middle class guy who ran off to Canada with his Judy Garland record collection due to fears of “prole America” has the economy all figured out.


      September 28, 2015 at 6:15 PM

      • He’s jealous of the corporations that have exploited the tax system to their favor, while his businesses (casinos) were in bankruptcy.


        September 28, 2015 at 8:00 PM

    • I’m tired of seeing “Meriprolestan” in every comment you type. Give it a rest.


      September 29, 2015 at 12:30 AM

      • I agree with destructure.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 29, 2015 at 8:51 AM

      • Why? Yet you have no problems with the words, prole or guido!


        September 29, 2015 at 10:47 AM

      • “prole” and “guido” are standard words which weren’t invented here, and are the best adjectives to describe proles and guidos.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 29, 2015 at 11:13 AM

      • Prole is short for proletariate.

        Meriprolestan (meree-prola-stan) means happy prole country in good times, and short for American Prole Country in bad times. Either way, it’s a term I invented for the Good Ol’ USA.


        September 29, 2015 at 11:43 AM

  2. I cannot find any mention of capital gains tax rate in Trumps tax plan. Is Trump planning to eliminate the lower rate on capital gains as part of “Reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich.”?

    The plan is very specific about tax cuts, but very vague about how those cuts will be made revenue neutral.


    September 28, 2015 at 12:32 PM

  3. Sorry, OT but revealed today on Bay Area radio that Safeway has a policy to ignore shoplifters – security not allowed to confront them. This, of course, is excellent news for GM.


    September 28, 2015 at 12:50 PM

    • This is the policy for many major retailers.


      September 28, 2015 at 10:53 PM

  4. The budget deficit exists because we waste money on welfare for illegal immigrants and their children.

    The federal government needs to be starved.


    September 28, 2015 at 1:18 PM

    • Lowering taxes has NEVER led to a decrease in government spending. Congress will just deficit spend.

      The opposite approach is more likely to result in lower government spending. If you raise people’s taxes, then people will complain to their congressman and demand less government spending.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 28, 2015 at 3:51 PM

      • We should have a constitutional amendment for balanced budgets. Government shouldn’t be allowed to take on debt.

        I don’t know much about money, but that seems reasonable.


        September 28, 2015 at 5:27 PM

      • “Lowering taxes has NEVER led to a decrease in government spending. Congress will just deficit spend.”

        This is a key consideration I almost never hear discussed. Tax policy will never cure the basic problem of the government spending too much. What we need is a law (constitutional amendment probably) capping federal spending as a percentage of GDP by criminalizing service in any federal elective office in a year that spending exceeds that cap.

        “We should have a constitutional amendment for balanced budgets.”

        Requiring a balanced budget does nothing to control spending, and there are legitimate economic reasons to run a deficit at times.


        September 28, 2015 at 7:59 PM

      • “Requiring a balanced budget does nothing to control spending, and there are legitimate economic reasons to run a deficit at times.”

        Excellent point.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 28, 2015 at 10:33 PM

      • Well sure, that would be great. However the reality is that we don’t have a balanced budget amendment. Thus efforts to cut taxes don’t really reduce the burden, they just shift it into inflation and drive the boom/bust cycle, resulting in massive misallocations of resources.


        September 28, 2015 at 7:59 PM

      • Lowering taxes has NEVER led to a decrease in government spending.

        Does it matter? It’s not like they spend the money on anything useful other than the military.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 28, 2015 at 9:07 PM

      • The vast majority of people like Social Security.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 28, 2015 at 10:35 PM

      • The vast majority of people like Social Security.

        It’ll be funded no matter what the deficit is.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 29, 2015 at 8:05 PM

      • “The vast majority of people like Social Security”

        Technically Social Security is a sort of government mandated 401K, not a tax. I realize it’s not used that way, but calling for lower taxes/spending while expecting your SS to be paid isn’t as disingenuous as some claim. Also, it could be made “solvent” with a fairly small reduction in benefits.


        September 30, 2015 at 10:26 AM

    • “We should have a constitutional amendment for balanced budgets. Government shouldn’t be allowed to take on debt. ”

      This is first-rate economic illiteracy. Read ANY serious macroeconomics.


      September 28, 2015 at 7:49 PM

      • “serious macroeconomics” That’s any oxymoron. Macroeconomics is nothing more than propaganda to convince people that deficit spending is ok.


        September 29, 2015 at 12:27 AM

      • There’s “serious” macroeconomics? How can you tell?


        September 29, 2015 at 2:18 AM

  5. Very disappointing tax plan. If I wanted the rich to pay less in taxes, I’d vote for iJeb! Promising to eliminate upper class deductions and loopholes is meaningless blather that everyone promises. As a whole the plan reaks of weakness in terms of setting the stage for tax negotiations.

    A Greater Plan would have been to start by increasing taxes on the rich. Then to have the tax rates automatically reduce as soon as the real unemployment rate falls, and as soon as the wall gets completed. That would have properly realigned incentives to make the rich start behaving themselves.

    Anonymous Bro

    September 28, 2015 at 1:20 PM

    • The damaged is already done, and can’t be undone. It was essentially a Pandora’s box, when it came to corporations moving their operations overseas, because it’s cheaper to operate outside of Meriprolestan, and this includes taxes.

      Furthermore, the White demographic will not be benefiting much, if let’s say, GE decides to stay within its boundaries. They will be hiring the scores H1Bs and non-whites at lower salaries.


      September 28, 2015 at 8:31 PM

    • A lot of the biggest problems in our economy stem from stupid handouts to the middle class. Health care spending and mortgage interest should absolutely not be deductible. The resulting distortions in the health care and housing markets are huge problems. Good luck winning an election by talking about closing those loop holes. Defense spending is another ridiculous thing that needs to be dealt with it, but that cash is overwhelmingly doled out to middle class folks so it’s untouchable, and you have Trump talking about dumping even more money into that rat hole.


      September 28, 2015 at 9:55 PM

  6. Agree, disappointing.


    September 28, 2015 at 1:27 PM

  7. Soaking the rich will not help you or me. It will only be used in furtherance of the great American cuckolding.


    September 28, 2015 at 2:06 PM

    • Actually it WILL help us by making more expensive and thus better neighborhoods more affordable to those whose tax hasn’t been raised.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 28, 2015 at 3:54 PM

  8. I like the Trump tax plan. Not perfect, of course, but what tax plan is? Nobody likes taxes.

    Everyone wants a “fair” tax plan, but there would be huge disagreement across the political spectrum as to what constitutes “fair.”

    One thing badly needed is simplification. The current tax code runs to over 70,000 pages, not counting court decisions. That’s way too long and complex – the compliance costs are enormous. The Trump plan is a forward step in this direction.

    I agree that, at least theoretically, ALL deductions should be eliminated. However, axing the two most popular, charitable donations and home mortgage interest, would fall outside the Overton window and make the plan politically infeasible. So they get to stay.

    Tax relief for the middle class is also good, and I agree that the lowest income individuals should not pay anything.

    The corporate income tax is currently a huge job killer and hurts GDP growth, so Trump wins here too. Corporations are in business to make money, not wave the flag, and if a foolish tax law causes them to shift jobs overseas to improve profits, well, exactly whose fault is that? Corporate inversion is caused by bad tax law and it needs to stop.

    The death tax? I have mixed feelings. A lot of this is mitigated by advance estate planning, but I’m just not sure here.

    Is it really revenue neutral? Not sure, but if it is, I’d take Trump’s plan over the current atrocious tax code hands down. One point about simplification is that it reduces the opportunity for trading political contributions for tax breaks and also reduces partisan abuse of the IRS, a sin in which FDR, Kennedy, Nixon and Obama have all indulged. The tax system should be used to generate revenue, not punish the administration’s political foes. It should also not be used to sock it to the rich because they tend to vote Democratic (a favorite Lion theme). That may be good politics but bad economics. BTW, it’s not the fault of the current (or any other) tax system that we have a budget deficit – tha’s caused by excessive spending.

    Black Death

    September 28, 2015 at 2:07 PM

    • “Nobody likes taxes.

      I like taxes just fine if other people are paying them and not me, because it increases my relative spending power.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 28, 2015 at 3:55 PM

    • “The corporate income tax is currently a huge job killer”

      Corporations pay tax on income, and employee salaries reduce income by the amount of the salary, so I don’t see how corporate taxes “kill” any jobs, because the salaries are a tax deduction for the corporation.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 28, 2015 at 3:56 PM

      • Here’s why corporate inversion is bad.

        Corporate inversion is one of the many strategies companies employ to reduce their tax burden. One way that a company can re-incorporate abroad is by having a foreign company buy its current operations. Assets are then owned by the foreign company, and the old incorporation is dissolved.

        For example, take a manufacturing company that incorporated itself in the United States in the 1950s. For years the majority of its revenue came from U.S. sales, but recently the percentage of sales coming from abroad has grown. Income from abroad is taxed in the United States, and U.S. tax credits do not cover all taxes that the company has to pay abroad. As the percentage of sales coming from foreign operations grows relative to domestic operations, the company will find itself paying more U.S. taxes because of where it incorporated. If it incorporates abroad, it can bypass having to pay higher U.S. taxes on income that is not generated in the United States. This is a corporate inversion.

        Corporate inversion is not considered tax evasion as long as it doesn’t involve misrepresenting information on a tax return or undertaking illegal activities to hide profit.


        A large drug manufacturing company near me bought an Irish subsidiary a few years ago. They moved their headqurters there and took a lot of jobs with them. Also, these inversions cost the US billions in tax revenue.

        “I like taxes just fine if other people are paying them and not me, because it increases my relative spending power.”


        I’m voting for your tax plan!


        Black Death

        September 28, 2015 at 4:11 PM

      • I like taxes just fine if other people are paying them and not me, because it increases my relative spending power.

        I prefer both relative and absolute power.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 28, 2015 at 9:09 PM

  9. Trump is really putting all his eggs in one basket, tailoring all of his policies to help the working class families and hurt the wealthy. He has courage


    September 28, 2015 at 2:29 PM

  10. If you imagine the typical legal working class family in Queens, father works construction and the mother works as a housekeeper. Once Trump deports all the male illegals who are now working construction, the father’s wages go up—-
    »Once Trump deports all the female illegals now working as housekeepers, the mother’s wages go up—
    »Even with their new higher wages, the family earns below average total income, and Trump’s tax plan dramatically cuts their taxes.
    »Finally, if you look at apartment markets where many of the apartments are rented by illegals, the exit of all the illegals dramatically reduces the demand for apartments and thus reduces rents. [ REPLY | MORE ]
    »Queens would be an example where you can expect apartment rental prices to come down

    »So in conclusion, Lion, you should consider the following net effect – Once Trump is elected, Dad’s wages go up, mom’s wages go up, family taxes go down and rent goes down. Net impact is a much much higher standard of living for this working class family of American Citizens living in Queens
    »Everyone says that life is not a zero sum game, but to some small extent it is a zero sum game. The massive benefit to this working class family in Queens is balanced by a slight dis benefit to a hedge fund family in Manhattan. Under Trump’s plan, the hedge fund family will have to pay slightly higher wages, and the hedge fund family will have to pay massively higher taxes.
    »Taken together, Trump’s plans are a massive transfer of income from hedge fund families to the working class families. Count me as an enthusiastic Trump supporter


    September 28, 2015 at 2:31 PM

    • Do you really think any of that is actually going to happen?

      Are people here borderline autistic or something?


      September 28, 2015 at 5:14 PM

      • I think Trump is the last hope. If Trump goes bust and a Hillary or Jeb get into office the civil war might as well start.


        September 29, 2015 at 12:16 AM

      • Yes, yes we are


        September 30, 2015 at 4:34 PM

  11. Disappointing. I was hoping Trump would really hit the 1% (most of whom are Democrats/leftists). Sometimes I have to remember that Trump is good but not great in terms of a political operative. The more anti-PC the better. Look at how Carson surged in the polls after his comment about a Muslim president.


    September 28, 2015 at 2:36 PM

    • The more anti-PC the better. Look at how Carson surged in the polls after his comment about a Muslim president.

      He only “surged” among America’s low IQ, White religious kook Republican types. That is the far fringe not the American core.


      September 28, 2015 at 6:12 PM

      • “That is the far fringe not the American core.”

        More the American core than urban SWPLs or all the ‘new Americans.’


        September 28, 2015 at 10:01 PM

      • More the American core than urban SWPLs or all the ‘new Americans.’

        Not remotely true. America isn’t the 1950s anymore. You are living in a White right wing cocoon if you think so.

        Look at America, look where it is heading.

        These White religious kook, right wingers are praying for the End Times…….IT BEGINS!!! because they are scared to face what is going on right here and now.

        They are the fringe and getting fringier. You and they are in denial.


        September 28, 2015 at 11:34 PM

      • I see, you instead advocate appealing to the future voters of the USA, latinos and blacks (and who knows, maybe muslims?). Are you by any chance Karl Rove in disguise?


        September 29, 2015 at 3:27 AM

      • If that is the “far fringe” we are in trouble. Unless you want to live in Brazil, the US needs to stay majority-white, and they need to be allowed to run things instead of pandering to dysfunctional blacks, latinos and Muslims.

        The Anti-Gnostic

        September 29, 2015 at 6:59 AM

      • You and they are in denial.

        And Riflewo(man) is in denial, that Meriprolestan is completely dysfunctional, in the league of western countries.


        September 29, 2015 at 10:45 AM

    • Most of the 1% is Main Street money and includes small business owners who are not leftists. The people in the 0,1% or even 0.01% are much wealthier and much worse people.


      September 28, 2015 at 10:09 PM

  12. I’m not sure if the right approach is my thoughts, but I was hoping he would propose something like massive cuts to lower incomes and corporations with large hikes to the individual rich. I think that is what Sanders would/plans to push. It would have been hilarious to watch that proposed – to follow a pattern to push for things that fits right in line to what Sanders would propose, but somehow avoid being label as such while the entire base rallying around to the chagrin to the establishment.


    September 28, 2015 at 3:06 PM

  13. “I also think that the 0% marginal rate for low incomes is a good idea as well.”

    I think everybody should pay something, even if it’s just a token amount, say, 5%. Most low income people are net tax recipients anyway via some kind of transfer, whether it’s Section 8 housing, disability, EBT cards, or what have you. Even if they pay 5% tax on the last dollar they earn over, for example, $20,000, for someone making $25K a year it only comes out to $250, an amount of money they probably blow on all sorts of stupid shit without even realizing it.The point is that even if it’s a token amount, they at least have a stake in the system working properly and not being abused.

    The downside to this is that if poor people feel as if they have a stake in the system, that might serve as an inducement for them to vote. Poor people are usually pretty disengaged from current events anyway, and we need fewer, not more uninformed voters.

    BTW, I would be OK with a higher top marginal tax rate, you know, the one that liberals always say is so great, if it was indexed honestly for inflation. The 91% top marginal rate of the 1950s that liberals speak so reverently about would not kick in until an AGI somewhere north of $2,000,000 in today’s dollars. No one I know of is proposing a 91% top marginal rate, but I think 99% of people would be OK with, let’s say, a 50% top marginal rate on incomes over $5,000,000. The only people that would be hit are entertainers, athletes, and other high earners. We’d sure find out if their “taxes ought to be higher” assertions are genuine or not.

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    September 28, 2015 at 3:40 PM

    • People don’t want poor people to starve or die of exposure. For every extra dollar you take away from them in taxes you’d have to pay it back in benefits.

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      September 29, 2015 at 2:34 AM

  14. The Times says the overseas taxation reforms are a joke:

    “However, because he would cut the corporate income tax rate so steeply, the effects of immediate worldwide corporate taxation would be limited: Companies get a credit for tax paid to other countries, so Mr. Trump’s tax would apply only on foreign profits that were not subject to tax by a foreign country at a rate of at least 15 percent. This would mostly affect income earned in tax havens, as most major countries have corporate income tax rates of more than 15 percent.”

    “In other words, Mr. Trump’s worldwide tax plan would have no effect on Ford’s choice to make cars in Mexico, so long as they’re paying at least 15 percent in tax to Mexico on their Mexican activities.”


    September 28, 2015 at 3:46 PM

  15. Does anyone else get super annoyed when someone describes themselves as “socially liberal, fiscally conservative?”

    “Fiscal” describes policies being specifically related to the government budget, not every single type of economic policy. Taxing rich people is more likely to balance a budget, and is therefore a fiscal conservative policy.


    September 28, 2015 at 4:40 PM

    • Balancing a budget is not necessarily fiscally conservative. High tax, high spending Benelux countries are not fiscally conservative.

      Fiscal conservatism has several aspects, in my view:

      – Low taxes
      – Low spending
      – Does not greatly redistribute wealth

      “Soak the rich” is not fiscally conservative. Quintessential fiscal conservatism is laissez faire. Hong Kong, Victorian Britain and America before FDR are all examples of fiscal conservatism. Reagan also took us in that direction.


      September 28, 2015 at 10:08 PM

  16. I’m just happy that he didn’t release the Trump equivalent of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan. The important thing is that his tax plan doesn’t sound completely insane. It’ll appeal to many establishment Republicans and 90% (I’m guessing) of blacks and the majority of low proles have just been told that they’ll pay no federal income tax is Trump is elected.


    September 28, 2015 at 4:47 PM

  17. Lion, You have not posted on this topic which seems tailored for you: Working class kids hurt themselves in college because they spend too much time studying. Rich kids spend college socializing, which yields greater dividends.


    September 28, 2015 at 5:15 PM

    • Wow, that looks really interesting and contrarian. Thanks!

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 28, 2015 at 7:35 PM

      • I did post a comment about the book featured in the article!


        September 28, 2015 at 7:55 PM

      • But then, how would a working class kid socialize and get an elite job? Meriprolestan is all about nepotism, when you compare its social mobility, with that of Canada and the better Euro nations (minus ProleUK)

        There is so much divisiveness in this country, that it’s almost impossible to even have a general paradigm, for people who want to become successful.


        September 28, 2015 at 8:56 PM

      • Lion, I agree. Haven’t we discussed this before? I would agree with Libertarians that in college you’re supposed to be building the 3 capitals–personal (e.g. social connections, ‘upper class’ polite habits), cultural ( e.g. read Great Books, understand finance and entrepreneurship), economic (skills, get those ‘A’s’)–as far as you can. Most people focus on just the economic that are from a ‘prole’ background.

        Here’s some interesting stuff I know on this:

        As my hobby is Libertarian-watching, I once had an interesting talk with MG, the Libertarian leader and super-networker (granted, MG is a tough-guy tall Spaniard descendant of Pelayo on his Mom’s side and the Gilsons are a very old US/UK/French family, so he started with some advantages: Here is his goddamn godmother and ‘patroness’ of the international Libertarians: and ). MG ended college with a vast Rolodex, is IMHO very cultivated and charming, had 5 or 6 majors in college ( philosophy and business, education, I think) BUT then apprenticed law with William P. Rogers.

        MG said that *in college your future is the sum of your 10 strongest friends/allies when you leave* with 5 in college and 5 mentors/out of college– and you should get 5 more every decade, or something like that. At that point money is just a tool and often a distraction, let others make the money as long as they have you on Speed-dial (or Facebook today? Dunno.)…Took me awhile before I realized MG was leveraging my Hollywood connections!

        In retrospect the people I met in college (never graduated) made my life and happy retirement today…
        BTW, MG consults for free in his retirement with colleges on just these issues–setting up networking/student support programs, job-ready majors with philosophy/honors minors, etc.– and his kids are just like him (magna students who clearly spend a lot of time at their local college building local and international connections when I last visited them–one of them visited local city leaders across the country while hitching for two years ‘to be with the people and help the homeless’ while another was appointed to local government as a teenage Libertarian and was/is secretary of the Black-Minority student association (!) preaching just what’s the positive in the article ) so there may be hope for civilization yet…


        September 29, 2015 at 6:03 AM

      • Also…

        When I was in college the best thing I did was take up the Classics as side-reading and join honor/dinner club societies that taught you manners and introduced you to people. Not sure those societies fulfill quite the same role today in most colleges. I think the dinner clubs quietly died out (I’m talking the 50’s)…


        September 29, 2015 at 6:09 AM

      • Lion – You do know of Ron Kuby, the liberal Jew, radio personality and civil rights lawyer, who thinks he is a Catholic and wishes he was black.

        I once heard him in the radio lambasting on East Asians, for being too hardworking, essentially boring grinds, who should learn a thing or two from blacks, with their outgoing behavior. I wholeheartedly believe he is correct, but I sense he was feeling threatened by them, because Asians do not follow the liberal ideology or become their victim subjects like blacks.

        SWPLs love blacks at a distance, feel threatened by Asians, and snub their noses down on proles.


        September 29, 2015 at 10:41 AM

      • Not many White college kids today are interested in the Classics, let alone blacks, Hispanics and the swarms of East Asians at our higher institutions, who will be complaining about White privilege and Eurocentrism!


        September 29, 2015 at 1:18 PM

    • Socializing only yields greater dividends if one has the personality to take advantage of it. Awkward or nerdy people wouldn’t get much out of the additional socializing, and they might actually hurt their careers because they wouldn’t be able to fall back on viable but non-elite careers like engineering and computer programming.


      September 28, 2015 at 10:12 PM

      • Good point, nebbish.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 28, 2015 at 10:36 PM

      • I disagree. College has a social aspect even for super-serious nerds. College provides an opportunity for awkward or nerdy people who have uncool or obscure interests to make friends with people who share the same interest (eg join the Chemistry Club or some academic honors society) or find an application for their skills in the real world (eg an engineer or computer programmer gets a job lead from a friend in the same major)

        The converse is also true: rich kids who go to college mainly to build social connections (Chelsea Clinton, Trump’s kids) will spend at least some time studying and probably learn something.


        September 29, 2015 at 3:40 PM

    • In summary, to get the plum jobs you should first of all hail from the correct social class. However, just being handed such jobs outright is viewed as louche by the public so some pious obfuscation is needed before you get your rewards.


      September 29, 2015 at 4:24 AM

  18. It sounds like Trump’s key point is to get corporations like Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook and others to repatriate their many billions stashed abroad. Perhaps step 2 is even … get them to invest those funds in America?

    Anyway, it sounds like we will soon hear the leftist technology corps begin whining about how unfair it all is. Give them a Come to Jesus moment when the time comes.


    September 28, 2015 at 5:22 PM

    • Letting companies like Apple, Amazon, and Google repatriate money sets a bad precedent for the future. If you don’t like that tax rate wait and eventually it will be given a free holiday! This is bullshit because those companies benefit from America, stable high IQ whites, and need to pay or be, gasp, forced to. Their entire industry was created by tax payer dollars spent on R&D in the Cold War. The whole point of R&D is to get future returns in the form of taxable money. How does that work if we give tax holidays? Tim Cook and his ilk need to be arrested for economic terrorism.


      September 29, 2015 at 12:24 AM

      • It would admittedly be funny to see Tim Cook on trial for terrorism. Maybe the worst offenders could be put in Guantanamo.


        September 29, 2015 at 3:33 AM

  19. Sad to see Trump wanting to eliminate the inheritance tax. He just exploded the meme that he’s a stealth Democrat.

    To cheer Lion’s readership up, note the current juxtaposition on Drudge’s home page:

    “MIRACLE: Baby born missing most of skull celebrates first birthday.”

    “Make or break time for Bush.”

    Mark Caplan

    September 28, 2015 at 5:48 PM

  20. I’m glad to see Trump’s plan lowers income and cap gains taxes for working / middle class and raises cap gains for upper class. I think the public would have been happier with raising income taxes for the upper class because they don’t understand how dramatic raising cap gains taxes on the rich will be.

    I’ve always opposed corp income tax because it raises the costs of exports hurting US competitiveness abroad. Corp income doesn’t really mean much until it gets transferred to individuals anyway. That’s why people should be more concerned with the taxes CEO’s and other managers pay rather than what corporations pay. Corporations aren’t real people even if they’re treated that way by law.

    I would have been fine with raising the estate tax exemption but eliminating it altogether is disappointing. I don’t want radicals like Soros leaving $20 Billion to their sprog. Ultimately, raising cap gains for high earners and eliminating estate taxes will make it harder for others to reach the top echelons and easier for those already there to stay. The net effect is to allow billionaires to build an economic “moat” around themselves.

    While I’m not thrilled with his tax plan it’s no big deal one way or the other. It’s mostly just… blah. I don’t really care what his tax plan is as long as he doesn’t expend political capital trying to pass it. My primary concern this election is immigration. Anything else is a distraction and can be fixed later.


    September 28, 2015 at 6:11 PM

    • “I don’t really care what his tax plan is as long as he doesn’t expend political capital trying to pass it. My primary concern this election is immigration. Anything else is a distraction and can be fixed later.”

      Excellent points.


      September 29, 2015 at 3:35 AM

  21. Trump plan is Norquist type talking points and its utter nonsense. That said any tax plan these days is a joke. None will create much job growth nor will any create GDP growth of any sort.

    Heck 2/3 of government spending is just for old age pensions and the military anyway.

    if the Us was to become solvent it would require drastic spending cuts, drastic tax hikes all the while somehow keeping the US out of a sudden decline into mass poverty

    There is no political will to do the most basic things (fix roads, maintain border, protect US jobs) much less anything actually hard

    My guess as to what will happen sometime down the line when the US$ loses its reserve currency status is default. The US will re-monetize to a new currency and a lot of people will take a haircut. This would not surprise me if it is some revolutionary government or done after a national collapse into separate republics

    Before that though there will be a massive attempt to create inflation enough to remain solvent. We are kind of already doing this but the US is in massive efficiency and wage arbitrage trap . Wages are down and layoffs, automation etc are common and easy. You can’t inflate if no one buys the goods and while you could massively push for inflation in the food sector, its risky and the US population is heavily armed.

    A.B Prosper

    September 28, 2015 at 6:49 PM

    • Norquist, in fact, endorsed it.


      September 29, 2015 at 12:49 AM

    • Aren’t many of the expensive programs inflation indexed anyway?


      September 29, 2015 at 3:37 AM

  22. I agree with Lion that he should raise taxes to make up for budget shortfalls. Trump should levy massively higher taxes on the sworn enemies of the Republican Party: 1) being the liberal TOOS trust fund rich which I would classify as estates of over 25 million dollars coming from unproductive sources and 2) anyone who makes their money by even remotely being involved with Hollywood or big media. If he’s going after hedge fund guys he mine as well go after actors and spoiled children. If there isn’t a way on the books to do this legally then he should hire the best lawyers in NYC to cook something up. Those two groups do more to undermine traditional American values than anyone else on the planet and they must be punished. This would not hinder the hard working entrepreneurial class that consistently supports Republicans.

    These are the two biggest groups that keep begging and pleading for higher taxes. I say he should give it to them…and hard.


    September 28, 2015 at 6:53 PM

    • I agree that the the battle should be brought to the people who loudly advocate confiscating other people’s wealth.

      Close the film incentive loop holes. Surcharge all salaries in the entertainment industry. Levy a tariff on soy.

      cluster of grapes

      September 28, 2015 at 7:55 PM

    • If I were Trump, I’d like Hollywood to be on my side. Perhaps he should have a proposal for a closer look at Hollywood accounting practices in his drawer, invite the studios for a friendly chat, and see what they think about it in private.


      September 29, 2015 at 4:15 AM

      • Getting the cultural Marxists in Hollywood on his side would be an exercise in futility. They will never accept Trump. Trump is pro middle America and they despise anything from flyover country.

        If a former actor like Reagan couldn’t get Hollywood to like him I don’t think the Donald has much of a chance.


        September 29, 2015 at 6:51 PM

      • In that case, let them suffer for their high minded principles (and long time severe systematic tax evasion).


        September 30, 2015 at 1:13 PM

  23. The tax plan shouldn’t be “revenue neutral,” the US government should run high deficits. Trump doesn’t understand monetary economics, but then few people do so one can’t expect much else.


    September 28, 2015 at 7:43 PM

    • Practically speaking, the public doesn’t seem to care about deficits and the economy isn’t doing well. This holds both nationally and globally since 2007 and may continue to do so for many years (more than 8). So Trump committing to raising taxes, closing deficits, tightening, etc, would seem quite premature.

      My advice: Rather than making any foolish promises in that area, leave things open for what the situation demands. Keep the option to Krugman the hell out of the economy if need be. Why not?


      September 29, 2015 at 4:04 AM

  24. “Furthermore, we have a budget deficit, so a responsible tax plan would raise taxes rather than be revenue netural.”

    Read this


    September 28, 2015 at 7:44 PM

  25. At first glance, this sounds like a dumb plan, but Trump isn’t dumb, so there must be a reason for it. I suspect the reason is to throw a bone to the GOP establishment, to see if they’ll back off on their attacks on him.

    The other possible interpretation is that Trump presents a “something for everyone” tax plan to please voters and donors, knowing that Dems in Congress would never approve his higher end tax cuts. Then, as President, he could play the same game with the donors that the GOP now plays with the base: “If only we had more votes in Congress, I could get you those high income tax cuts.”

    Dave Pinsen

    September 29, 2015 at 4:54 AM

  26. Lion, FYI–another tech kid arrest for a bomb?


    September 29, 2015 at 5:13 AM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: