I agree 100% Trump won’t be able to move further. He just wants to show what he promised to people. Congress has to come to an agreement !
Look at his original plan
Still, corp tax may be around 20%, but all income tax deductions stay same !
Mostly Bay area only no matter what changes tax plan.
If I move, then it is seattle => Camas, WA, no state income tax, cross border, 15 mins drive, no sales tax !
Generally it’s a good proposal with simplification to most people. It’s still a guideline, people can still debate and make suggestions. So far, I have not read anything which suggest a major flaw.
For majority of the people, only change is simplification and they can spend less time to worry about tax, no tax amount change for them, or minimal tax amount change. For a very small percentage of people in CA and NY, they may see a difference of a couple thousand dollars for their 100k+ income.
Not a big deal. If you really care about a couple thousand dollars of taxes, look at your state tax. Federal tax is essential for the country to run, while state income tax is discrectioanl. You can ask your state to reduce or eliminate state income tax and provide less incentive for low income migrants to come over.
Or you can ask your state to treat state income tax as donations so that you can get a deduction.
Here, this inept president is too small for the white house. Period!
It also marked a somber start to the presidency of Donald Trump, who hits his first 100 days in office Saturday and rose to power on a message of nationalist economic revival. Trump has taken credit for increased consumer confidence, growing employment and record gains on the stock market in recent months.
Trump also is basing planned multi-trillion-dollar tax cuts unveiled this week on an anticipated return to three percent annual growth, which the White House says will generate the revenues needed to pay for the tax cuts.
While economists debate the likelihood of a return to that level of growth, the first quarter numbers showed a tepid pace, although the preliminary growth estimates are subject to revision.
Consumer spending fell to its lowest level in nearly eight years, adding only 0.3 percent, with spending on services their lowest in four years and durable goods orders their lowest since 2011.
Defense spending contracted by four percent, its lowest pace in nearly three years, helping drive down overall government expenditures by 1.7 percent, the lowest quarterly result in almost four years.
Business investments increased 4.3 percent for the quarter but this down from the brisk 9.4 percent in the prior quarter.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/us-economic-growth-hits-3-year-low-in-trumps-first-quarter/
Obamacare did NOT divorce health insurance from work. It made it much more expensive to self-insure. More than double the cost. I know, I self insure and my premiums went for $220 a month to $495 a month - for a crap plan that ensures my only interface with the health care system is through ER if I have an emergency.
Funny to read some people so blind and out of touch with what is going on. The poor guy, is playing extortion on the democrats by threatening with a government shutdown because he needs them to sign up and pass this bill.
How stupid are you to not understand the republicans, your party, are the majority?
Same as AHCA, the GOP is giving him the cold shoulder treatment. How about that!
That bad? You are the majority but can’t pass crap? And if you do, in a hurry because all you do is bitch for 6 years on something “you didn’t like” and when you have the chance to prove your case, no better plan, not even a plan in hand but to draft a crappy one? So, wasn’t it all about having something better but bitching? 
I am sure some people working in HR would fire this type of applicant. Lying, crying, extorting, accusing others of his own failures and never accepting responsibility for anything wrong during his tenure and playing golf when his presence is needed at work. Am I right?
I just realized the complete hypocrisy of the Keynesian left.
They believe you can fix a recession by the government borrowing money to spend it and stimulate demand. They have no issue adding to the debt, so the government can spend money. The theory is the money spent will trickle down to the average person in terms or jobs, wages, etc. Then those people will spend more money and create a circle of economic growth. However, they are firmly against lowering taxes which would directly put money in the hands of the people they claim to want to help. They immediately start citing budget deficit concerns for a reason to not cut taxes. Now it’s really clear.
They don’t give a crap about the average person. All they care about is increasing government power and control. There’s no way anyone can argue it’s more efficient and effective to have the government spend money then wait for it to trickle down to people than it is to directly give the people the money via a tax cut. The people would have the money quicker via tax cut, so they could start spending it faster. It would start the cycle of economic growth sooner.
Also, how can they claim government spending creates trickle down benefits but spending by the rich doesn’t?
All spending increases growth (regardless of entity). Spending has a multiplier effect. That is all correct.
What is incorrect in your implicit assumption is that reducing taxes on the rich, will encourage them to spend. We know that is not the case (look at Bush tax cuts for example)
When you cut taxes for the rich, are they using the tax savings to invest in means of production or taking the savings and applying it to financial instruments that dont contribute to investment in production or into fixed assets that is not increasing production of a good. What we see more often then not, for the ultra rich, savings from taxes are not going into former and are rather going into the latter two which does not help the economy.
the best tax cuts are to people who are likely to spend it all which is the middle and lower class.
I was talking more about reducing taxes for all vs government stimulus spending. If the 2 choices are tax cuts for all or increasing government spending, the tax cuts for all will produce growth faster. Bush cut taxes for everyone. Bush tax cuts created more growth than Obama’s stimulus spending did.
Investment can help the economy. Investment is new business creation is a job creator. We need more of it.
Keynesian stimulus is supposed to be deployed only in recessions. It’s supposed to be temporary. Keynes said governments should pay down the debts after economy gets better.
Private sector as a whole has been borrowing to buy back shares. If there are that many opportunities to deploy capital they would have done so already. Instead what needs investment is our public infrastructure. The roads, bridges, schools etc that no amount of tax cuts will fund.
Just imagine our country without all the bridges and all the interstates and all the public universities. Which would stimulate more growth? Build the bridges, the roads and the colleges? Or cutting taxes?
That’s true and democrats ignore that part of Keynesian economic theory. We run deficits even during economic expansion. Then we run bigger ones in recession.
Yes, we need more of the bay bridge which was first approved at $1B and ended up being over $5B. We need more universities where student enrollment grows 10% and administrative staff grows by 5x. The government has proven they can’t run anything efficiently or on budget. Why should we give them more money? Then there’s the pentagon which admittedly wastes $125B/yr. The government gets plenty of money. What they need is to use it effectively.
Since WW2, taxes collected average 17.5% of GDP. It’s not very sensitive to marginal tax rates.
Health insurance is a huge concern for self-employed and entrepreneurs. If you work for a corporation, you can get a good health insurance through employer. But if you decide to go on your own, there is no good insurance available at reasonable cost.
When switching employers, you can have the option to buy Cobra coverage for 18 months, which might be a good option at reasonable cost.
After that, you can join an association, such as a realtor association or other professional association, where you might be able to get a good insurance at group rate. I assume it’s comparable to cobra rate.
If you have to buy insurance as individual on private market, it could be very expensive.
I do not know much about ObamaCare. Are most self employed people buy Obamacare?
Is Medicare better than Obamacare plans? Is it too expensive to extend Medicare or Medicaid to everyone?
I currently buy my coverage thru CA exchange, aka Obamacare, with 0 subsidy. Costs are more affordable than I expected. I did some research comparing the cost of the exact same plan bought outside of the exchange, and it’s higher. I don’t know why.
I am exploring the option of having my company buy coverage for its employees, namely me and wife. Need to talk with CPA if and how much I can deduct that as company expenses.
Every time I hear people say American companies are paying too much taxes I chuckle. You guys are missing all the fun.
Aren’t you a realtor? Why not buy health insurance from realtor association? With so many realtors, you might be able to get good coverage at reasonable cost.
Is the coverage through exchange good? You better buy good coverage so that you can go to good doctors and hospitals when you need them.
Self employed and entrepreneurs should buy good health insurance to reduce their life risk, better get the same coverage or better coverage than when you were employed
One of our family member is using the same coverage with zero subsidy. All others are higher and we have taken cover CA.
If you get information, let me know the details.
I like my current coverage. Yeah, I should look up the realtors association’s offering. Never occurred to me. 
It’s hard to compete with employers’ offering because they are paying with pre-tax money. That’s one big reason why health costs is so high in this country. If my own company can do the same then maybe I can save some big bucks.
Once Obamacare happened insurance became scarce…You pretty much have to go thru Ca Care…In Tahoe we basically only have one option…double the cost of pre Obamacare with huge deductibles. …
**Talk to me. I can find you 10-40% worker’s comp reduction, with cheap payroll, 10%-20% Obamacare discount, credit union, credit fix, small loans up to $4M, and a freebie of $4K funeral plan for employees if they join this labor organization. More benefits coming 
History shows how important high taxes on the rich are for creating a strong middle class.
If you compare a chart showing the historical top income tax rate over the course of the twentieth century with a chart of income inequality in the United States over roughly the same time period, you’ll see that the period with the highest taxes on the rich – the period between the Roosevelt and Reagan administrations – was also the period with the lowest levels of economic inequality.
You’ll also notice that since marginal tax rates started to plummet during the Reagan years, income inequality has skyrocketed.
Even more striking, during those same 33 years since Reagan took office and started cutting taxes on the rich, income levels for the top 1 percent have ballooned while income levels for everyone else have stayed pretty much flat.
Coincidence? I think not.
Creating a middle class is always a choice, and by embracing Reaganomics and cutting taxes on the rich, we decided back in 1980 not to have a middle class within a generation or two. George H.W. Bush saw this, and correctly called it “Voodoo Economics.” And we’re still in the era of Reaganomics – as President Obama recently pointed out, Reagan was a successful revolutionar
More garbage. Post WW2 was a unique era. The rest of the world didn’t have manufacturing plants left. The US experienced prosperity that won’t be repeated unless we take out everyone’s manufacturing again. The Japanese manufacturing superior and cheaper cars started the death of the middle class.
Also, Clinton did more to push inequality than anyone. He limited what companies could deduct for executive base pay in 1993. That’s when stock based comp started and the CEO pay gap sky rocketed.
Plus, back on the 80’s the tax base was broader. Only 20% of people didn’t pay income taxes vs 42% today.
Then there’s the comparison of GM to Walmart as if that has to do with taxes. Walmart got so huge by selling at lower prices. People want the low process and don’t care how poorly paid their neighbors that work there are. Consumers decided that with their wallets. It has nothing to do with taxes. If Walmart gave every dollar of profit to employees, it’d be $5,900 for each employee. That’s ~$3/hr raise for a full-time employee. It’s not going to be life changing. If Walmart paid the same as GM, they’d have to raise prices nearly 50% and still wouldn’t make a profit. How many people would pay 50% more to shop there?
Then there’s the issue of going off the gold standard in 1971. Anyone who’s a saver has seen asset prices sky rocket which has boosted income with investment gains. Non-savers fall further behind every year.
Oh, and then there’s the pesky issue that twice as many people have moved up and out of the middle class as down and out.
