Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 30, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump's proposals would modestly cut income taxes for most middle-class Americans. But for nearly 8 million families -- including a majority of single-parent households -- the opposite would occur: They'd pay more. Most married couples with three or more children would also pay higher taxes, an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found. And while middle-class families as a whole would receive tax cuts of about 2 percent, they'd be dwarfed by the windfalls averaging 13.5 percent for America's richest 1 percent. "If you're a low- or moderate-income single parent, you're going to get hurt," said Bob Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

For middle-income earners as a whole, the Trump proposals would cut taxes, even taking into account the increases on single-parent families. Those earning nearly $50,000 to about $83,000 -- the middle one-fifth -- would receive an average cut of $1,010, according to the Tax Policy Center.

By contrast, the wealthiest 1 percent -- those earning over $700,000 -- would enjoy a tax cut averaging nearly $215,000, boosting their after-tax incomes 13.5 percent.

And the richest 0.1 percent -- those making above $3.7 million -- would receive a bonanza: An average tax cut exceeding $1 million.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

But at least Trump voters didn't vote for the candidate with the private email server.

Pathetic.

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-27 04:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Let's see Trump get this past the Democratic filibuster.

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-27 04:08 PM | Reply

"for nearly 8 million families -- including a majority of single-parent households -- the opposite would occur: They'd pay more."

Because those are the folks who are the problem in the economy, and therefore the ones you really want to hurt.

Thanks, Trump.

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 04:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2 He will pull a "W" and pass it through budget reconciliation. It won't be permanent, but hey...baby steps.

Besides, someone has to pay for the fat tax cut for the kardashians, might as well be single parents who work.

#4 | Posted by 726 at 2016-11-27 06:19 PM | Reply

From the link ...

During the campaign, Trump said his tax cuts -- for individuals and companies -- would energize the economy by boosting business investment in factories and equipment, while leaving consumers with more cash to spend. His proposals, he contended, would help create 25 million jobs over the next decade.

But Lily Batchelder, a visiting fellow at the Tax Policy Center and former deputy director of President Barack Obama's National Economic Council, estimates that roughly 7.9 million families with children would pay higher taxes under his proposals.

About 5.8 million are led by single parents. An additional 2.1 million are married couples.

Other analysts, including economists at the conservative Tax Foundation and right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, have agreed with Batchelder's conclusions.


QFT

#5 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-27 06:31 PM | Reply

From the link ...

Trump's advisers deny that he will raise taxes on middle-income Americans but don't provide details. Previously, the campaign suggested that Trump would broadly instruct Congress to avoid raising taxes on lower- and middle-income workers.

"We will cut taxes massively for the middle class and working class and protect everyone in the middle class and working class," Stephen Miller, Trump's top policy adviser, said in an email.

Yet all independent analyses show most of the benefit flowing to the wealthiest Americans.

Nearly half of Trump's tax cuts would go to the top 1 percent of earners, the Tax Policy Center found.

Less than a quarter of the cuts would benefit the bottom 80 percent.


Again, those certain voters can take solace that their "pride" and "self respect" weren't sullied by voting for the candidate with the private email server.

#6 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-27 06:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump$ response wil be something like " you knew I was a snake when you voted for me.. don't be surprised that I bite"

#7 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2016-11-27 07:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Because those are the folks who are the problem in the economy, and therefore the ones you really want to hurt.

Thanks, Trump.

Have you ever gotten a job from a single parent or a married with three to four children person?

They're leeches who need to pay their fair share while the actual, real patriotic Americans use their tax cuts to grow the economy and create jobs.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 07:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Still, Trump's plan will likely evolve during congressional negotiations before it becomes law.

My bet is the benefits for middle income Americans changes while the remainder benefiting the wealthy (estate tax repeal, dividend tax rates ect) go no where.

Paper pushers are the new industrialists.

Own it Trumpsters.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 07:24 PM | Reply

And if that isn't painful enough, a healthy handful of salt will be tossed into that wound when services, education, national parks, infrastructure, entitlement programs ect ect take a whopping hit in order to make some semblance of "balance" in the Federal budget.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 07:27 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Analysis: For some in middle class, Trump plan would mean tax increase

www.foxnews.com

"Trump's campaign rhetoric may have been populist, but his tax plan isn't," Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the policy center, wrote on its website.

His tax proposals suggest what may be a challenge for Trump's administration: Providing his middle- and working-class supporters with tangible signs of economic progress.

Middle-income Americans already pay a relatively modest share of federal income taxes compared with the wealthy. That limits the scope of what tax cuts could do for them.

"The thing that he needs to worry about is making life better for his supporters, and that involves more than tax cuts," Williams said.

Middle class finances have also been squeezed by high and rising costs for health care, higher education and housing, noted Joseph Cohen, a sociologist at Queens College in New York City.

"We've been cutting taxes since Reagan, and things have been getting worse for the middle class since Reagan," he said.


And this is from a Fox News link.

#11 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-27 08:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Middle-income Americans already pay a relatively modest share of federal income taxes compared with the wealthy. That limits the scope of what tax cuts could do for them."

Incorrect language. It limits the scope of what INCOME tax cuts could do for them.

Cuts on excise taxes or payroll taxes are an entirely different thing. As it stands, excise taxes on 4 tires for a Honda are the same as 4 tires on a Mercedes. And social security taxes stop around $120,000.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 08:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Yeah, not all taxes are built on the same chassis, so to speak -- thanks, nice catch.

#13 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-27 08:16 PM | Reply

I had to go to a new thanksgiving dinner last week. A bunch of people who I had never met were there.

My girlfriend has a cousin who is a big fat POS. The government cuts him a check twice a month because he, literally, can not stop ******** in his pants. He carries a back pack around with him with fresh clothes in it for when he has a blow out.

The fat bastard waddles in and lays a hand gun on the table, takes his back pack of diapers or whatever off and hangs it on the back of a chair, pick his gun up and stomps off to the can. Guy was in there for a llllooooonnnnngggggg time and he kept going back.

Each time he went he made sure he was armed.

Big Trump supporter.

Unfortunately I wasn't supposed to know about his,,,, "problem" because it would have been hilarious to ask him what he's going to buy new guns with when Paul Ryan and Donald Trump cut off his poop checks.

#14 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2016-11-28 01:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Each time he went he made sure he was armed.

Big Trump supporter.

#14 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2016-11-28 01:00 PM | Reply

Feral ---- can be deadly.

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-28 01:03 PM | Reply

And social security taxes stop around $120,000.

#12 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2016-11-27 08:09 PM | FLAG: I've nothing against raising that top SS limit, as long as those individuals also get a higher monthly 'check' once they are receiving SS.

#16 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-28 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I've nothing against raising that top SS limit, as long as those individuals also get a higher monthly 'check' once they are receiving SS."

What about carried interest?

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-28 03:29 PM | Reply

-What about carried interest?

what about it?

#18 | Posted by eberly at 2016-11-28 03:31 PM | Reply

"what about it?"

The Romneys of the world pay no social security taxes...you know, 'cause their "work" only produces long-term capital gains...

...somehow.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-28 03:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

19

Are you suggesting income from "carried interest" be subject to SS taxes?

#20 | Posted by eberly at 2016-11-28 03:38 PM | Reply

"Are you suggesting income from "carried interest" be subject to SS taxes?"

Same as any other pay-for-work.

Trouble is, every person affected is a member of the political donor class.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-28 03:42 PM | Reply

"Same as any other pay-for-work."

Why should part of your workday go to SS taxes, and none of theirs?

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-28 03:42 PM | Reply

21

Yeah, I see your point but I was reading MSGTs comment to mean earned income only....not the unearned income the donor class enjoys.

If you want to raise the income subject to SS taxes, be prepared to increase the monthly income for those who are subject to that increase.

Not the Romneys of course, as you said they record no earned income.

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2016-11-28 03:46 PM | Reply

My point is carried interest is anything BUT "unearned" income.

If it's the result of work, it's earned.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-28 03:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Carried interest is a job performance incentive. High success garners high payouts. A portion of it should be taxable, but as said above, often folks who have earned their place and positions to participate in carried interest opportunities are members of the political donor class to both political parties.

#25 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-28 04:05 PM | Reply

"Carried interest is a job performance incentive. "

IOW, it's based on work. Thanks for proving my point for me.

"folks who have earned their place and positions to participate in carried interest opportunities are members of the political donor class to both political parties."

Same with GRATS. The rest of us have to deal with a $14,000 annual limit, while Sheldon Adelson has passed over $8 billion to his heirs, saving billions in taxes.

---- Fongress.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-28 04:17 PM | Reply

I will get seriously screwed

#27 | Posted by truthhurts at 2016-11-28 07:06 PM | Reply

Most don't believe anything the news media now says, based upon the proven biased history of the MSM. They've not only screwed themselves but the country too. We used to expect and trust what they said. No more. We believed them as objective. We must purge the current media ownership and give the responsibility to honest people.

#28 | Posted by Robson at 2016-11-30 08:36 PM | Reply

Robson, you mean honest people like Fox News, Breitbart, infowars,
Worldnetdaily etc etc etc ?????

#29 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2016-11-30 10:52 PM | Reply

my fed tax has increase each year since 2010, and only making 45k, it shouldn't have under O....well below that 250 mark. my health insurance premiums are up 60% so please tell me how he has been any better?

#30 | Posted by scooter28054 at 2016-12-01 08:18 AM | Reply

Sigh...and here we have people from both sides actually believing this crap. About once a month a new article comes out about how taxes are going to be raised and people will be living in tipi's unless you are ultra-rich. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and again. It never ends. The current President is going to destroy everyone and we will be bowing down to him every day soon.

Get over it, people. Taxes aren't going to be more fair for the rich; it's just the way math works. It's like someone investing $100 who gets pissed off that his $100 didn't make him $5000 in interest in a month but it did for someone who invested $50,000,000. Math is pretty easy to understand if you just try. Hence why the author went from talking true percentages at the end of the article to actual dollar amounts. People can spin it however you want but if you take the time to do the math, you will see nothing changes unfairly for any group.

This is my favorite part though:
"I would want him to explain that to me," she said. "Taxes have to make sense to the people paying them."

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Someone hasn't lived in America very long, apparently.

#31 | Posted by humtake at 2016-12-01 11:29 AM | Reply

...but those eight million don't contribute to his PACs, so they don't matter. Onward with the larghesse!

#32 | Posted by e1g1 at 2016-12-01 04:23 PM | Reply

What ? It's too late to pass Obamacare! That was a great Tax increase!

#33 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-12-01 07:31 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort