https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-ca...nners-trumps-tax-plan.html/?ref=YF&yptr=yahoo

The White House and Congressional Republicans are gearing up to overhaul America’s famously complex tax code and “make taxes simpler, fairer, and lower for hard-working American families.” But if the legislation that eventually reaches Congress looks anything like the ideas floated by the Trump administration so far, average Americans might not have much to celebrate. That’s the conclusion of a report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. However, some states are more affected than others.

Proposals to streamline tax brackets, eliminate the alternative minimum tax, and get rid of many itemized deductions would result in $4.8 trillion in total tax savings through 2027. But 61.4% of all those savings would go to the top 1% of taxpayers, the organization concluded, and 14% of middle-income taxpayers would end up paying more in taxes, not less.
A tax cut for the richest Americans?

In addition to disproportionately benefiting the rich — who would receive tax cuts equivalent to 6.9% of their income, compared to 1.4% for the middle 20% — the suggested tax reforms would also benefit some states more than others. Generally, states with more rich people win big, while those with poorer people lose, though the possible elimination of deductions for state and local taxes makes the “picture somewhat more complicated,” according to the institute.

Which states will lose and benefit the most? Let’s take a look at the biggest losers first.

The tax reform losers

The institute ranked all 50 states and the District of Columbia based on the share of the tax cuts they’d receive relative to their share of the total U.S. population. It also looked at how different groups in each state would fare in 2018 if tax reform happens. Many, but not all, of the states that would get a smaller piece of the tax cut pie backed Trump in the 2016 election. Here are the seven that would get the worst deal.

7. Maine

Share of tax cuts relative to share of population: 71%
Average tax cut: $1,570

Overall, Maine would get a smaller share of the total proposed tax cuts than its share of the population. However, the tax cuts would be somewhat more equally distributed among different income groups in this state than they are in the U.S. in general. The richest 1% would get about 34% of all the tax cuts in Maine, while nationwide more than 61% of the cuts would go to the top sliver of the population. Fifteen percent of all the cuts would go to the bottom 60%, compared to 10% nationwide.

6. Oregon

Share of tax cuts relative to share of population: 69%
Average tax cut: $1,550

The richest 1% of taxpayers in Oregon would save $71,200 a year on their taxes if Trump’s various proposals are enacted, the institute estimated. The poorest 20% would save $110, while middle-income taxpayers would get an extra $740 in their pockets. Overall, the wealthiest 20% would get just over 70% of all the tax cuts.

5. New Mexico

Share of tax cuts relative to share of population: 67%
Average tax cut: $1,790

Middle-income taxpayers in New Mexico would save an estimated $580 a year if the administration’s tax reform proposals become reality. The richest 1%, who earn more than $1.2 million on average, would save $73,070. The poorest 20% would get an extra $80 a year.

4. Kentucky

Share of tax cuts relative to share of population: 66%
Average tax cut: $1,590

In Kentucky, middle-income taxpayers would save $640 a year if Trump’s tax changes become law — 1.4% of their total pre-tax income. The top 1%, on the other hand, would get an extra $68,550 per year, on average, equivalent to 5.2% of their total pre-tax income.

3. Arkansas


Share of tax cuts relative to share of population: 66%
Average tax cut: $1,600

Close to half of all Trump’s tax cuts would go to the richest 1% of Arkansans. This group would get to keep 6% more of their pre-tax income per year, or an average of $80,800. The middle 20% of taxpayers would get 1.3% of their income back, an average of $570 per year.

2. West Virginia

Share of tax cuts relative to share of population: 61%
Average tax cut: $1,380

The middle 20% of West Virginia taxpayers, who earn an average of $41,200 a year, would get an extra $500 a year in their pocket under Trump’s tax proposals. That’s 7.2% of all tax cuts in the state. Nearly three-quarters of all tax cuts in West Virginia would go to the top 20%.

1. Mississippi

Share of tax cuts relative to share of population: 53%
Average tax cut: $1,290

Fifty bucks. That’s how much the poorest 20% of people in Mississippi would save on their taxes under Trump’s proposals. Overall, the people at the bottom of the economic ladder would get less than 1% of all the tax cuts going to Mississippi, while the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers in the state would get 47.8% — equivalent to an average savings of $62,390 on their 2018 taxes. The middle 20% would get 13% of the tax cut, saving an average of $850 a year.


The tax reform winners

The following seven states would get a greater share of tax reform savings relative to their total population.
7. Florida

Share of tax cuts relative to share of population: 146%
Average tax cut: $3,160

Florida would get a disproportionate share of total tax cuts, according to the institute’s estimates. The bottom 60% of taxpayers in the Sunshine State would get 5.5% of all the tax cuts. Just under 8% would go to people in the fourth income quintile, and the remaining 86.6% would go to the top 20% of Floridians


6. South Dakota

Share of tax cuts relative to share of population: 150%
Average tax cut: $3,530

The bottom three-fifths of South Dakota taxpayers, who earn an average of $59,300 per year, would receive an estimated $410 under Trump’s tax proposals. The richest 1%, who make an average of $1.77 million, would see their taxes fall by $203,110, or 11.5% of their pre-tax income.


5. Massachusetts

Share of tax cuts relative to share of population: 157%
Average tax cut: $3,380

People in Massachusetts may have overwhelmingly backed Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, but the state still would come out ahead when it comes to Trump’s tax proposals. Most of the gains would go to the top 1%, though, who would save an average of $215,670 on their taxes. Middle-income taxpayers, who earn $60,800 per year on average, would get $1,150 in tax savings.

4. North Dakota

Share of tax cuts relative to share of population: 163%
Average tax cut: $3,570

More than half of the $1.3 million in tax cuts for North Dakota would go to a handful of the state’s richest residents, who each would receive an average savings of $187,660. The middle 20%, who earn $58,600 per year on average, would get 4.4% of the savings, or roughly $800 each.

3. District of Columbia

Share of tax cuts relative to share of population: 169%
Average tax cut: $3,520

Not only does D.C. get more than its share of tax cuts relative to the population, but the wealthiest individuals get an extra large share of that pie. Nearly 70% of all the tax cuts would go to the district’s richest 1%, who each would save an average of $245,770 a year. Interestingly, the bottom 15% of the top 20% of D.C. taxpayers would actually pay more under Trump’s tax proposals — an additional $600 a year on average.

2. Connecticut

Share of tax cuts relative to share of population: 176%
Average tax cut: $3,960

Connecticut, home of bankers and hedge fund millionaires, would make out pretty well if Trump’s various tax reforms become law. The state would get a disproportionate share of the total cuts relative to its population, and the richest 1% would get close to 63% of all the benefit. People in this group would save an average of $253,050 per year on their taxes. The middle 20%, who earn $62,300 on average, would get $720 a year, or 3.7% of all the cuts.

1. Wyoming

Share of tax cuts relative to share of population: 213%
Average tax cut: $5,030

Wyoming may have a small population, but it’s the big winner when it comes to tax cuts. The $1.38 million the state would save on taxes in 2018 works out to a little over $5,000 per person. But the state’s poorest wouldn’t see nearly that much. The bottom 20% of taxpayers would get an extra $110 per year, and the middle 20% would get a tax savings of $940. The top 1%, meanwhile, would get to keep 10% more of their income, or $308,540 on average.

 

Well we all know Congress will have to pass anything that Trump's people lay out and
we all trust Congress....right..??

 

i do not trust anyone that has been elected

 

Don the Con and Congress will do what is best for billionaires and millionaires, and fuck the middle class

 

I do not trust the Republicans on taxes. They will give "working Americans" a pittance. Then they will claim that if the "job creators" get huge tax cuts they will use the money to create more jobs.

It did not work under George the Lesser. According to Princeton Professor Paul Krugman, who won the 2008 Nobel Prize for Economics, the top one percent got 40 percent of George's tax cuts. According to The Wall Street Journal under George the Lesser an average of 375,000 jobs were created per year. That was quite a decline from the average of 2,900,000 jobs created per year under Bill Clinton.

Under Jimmy Carter the top tax rate held steady at 70%. Under Ronald Reagan it declined to 28%. Jobs created under Reagan also declined from the Carter record of 2,600,000 to 2,000,000 under Reagan.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

The right wing bully boys of XNXX will claim that this does not matter, because the president has little control over the economy. OK, fine. Then why did Trump promise the gaping hinds of flyover country that he would bring back their well paying factory jobs.

Factory jobs only became well paying because of Democrat economic reforms under Franklin Roosevelt. The gaping hinds either dropped out of high school before they had a chance to learn that, or they got it wrong on the test.

 

Was Hillary the best way to go in 2016. Unfortunately for Americans, she was. I know I would have preferred a better candidate, but she was MUCH superior to the esteemable Mr Trump.

Trump makes Nixon look like a saint!

 

Any tax cut program is going to give the 1% a bigger share.
First, because the law makers ARE the 1%. The average net worth of Congress is over $1 Million.
Second, because the "rich" pay more in taxes than the rest of us combined. When reading the alarming headlines that tax cuts benefit the rich, be sure the story doesn't mix the "percentage of the cut" with the $ of the cut.

 

i refuse to accept doggos shit because he was a stormfront member and has made many statements aligning himself with the white power movement and has proven again and again that he has no single standing of beliefs and is willing to flop with the news that suits his personal ideas.

- ridgerunner

----------

I am neither a partisan nor an ideologue. Just because I agree with the Republicans on some issues does not mean that I have an obligation to agree with them on everything. The same of course is true of the Democrats.

It is obvious to me that the races differ in average ability levels and behavior, and that these differences have legitimate policy implications. It is equally obvious that economic policies that have the obvious effect of benefiting the rich do not benefit everyone else in equal measure.

I believe in the existence and importance of innate average racial differences. I also believe that man made global warming is happening, and is a serious problem. In each case I am driven not by what I want to believe, but by the relevant facts.

 

Just prior to President Obama's 2014 State of the Union Address, media[6] reported that the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nation’s wealth; the bottom 80% own 7%; similarly, but later, the media reported, the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent".[7] The gap between the top 10% and the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1,000% for the top 1%. The average employee "needs to work more than a month to earn what the CEO earns in one hour."[8] Although different from income inequality, the two are related. In Inequality for All—a 2013 documentary with Robert Reich in which he argued that income inequality is the defining issue for the United States—Reich states that 95% of economic gains went to the top 1% net worth (HNWI) since 2009 when the recovery allegedly started.[9] More recently, in 2017, an Oxfam study found that eight rich people, six of them Americans, own as much combined wealth as "half the human race".[10][11][12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

-------

CNBC Published 6:02 AM ET Tue, 14 April 2015 | Updated 1:10 PM ET Tue, 14 April 2015

The top-earning 1 percent of Americans will pay nearly half of the federal income taxes for 2014...

While the top 1 percent pay a larger share of taxes, they also earn an outsized share of income.
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html

The federal income tax is the most progressive. If all taxes are included, the share paid by the richest one percent is less than half, probably quite a bit less than half. Meanwhile the share of wealth and income going to the richest one percent is about as high as it was right before the Stock Market Crash of 1929.

Surveys indicate that most Americans underestimate the degree of economic inequality in the United States, but still think there should be less inequality. Surveys also indicate that most Americans would like for rich people and corporations to pay more of the tax load. Finally, there is little support for specific cuts in domestic spending.

 

What America needs is a tiered flat tax if it's going to keep income taxes and a flat sales tax so the more you spend the more you pay.

The issue with that is and I will admit I share a part in it, is that the gap between the upper class and middle class is so far apart it's going to be hard to fix.

 

Bump

 

Public opinion polls indicate that the Republican tax plan is unpopular. If popular apprehensions are borne out by the results of the plan, the Republican Party will be in trouble.

 

The presidents tax reform will become reality and our economy will improve. Our exports will increase which will result in better employment opportunities for those wishing to enrich their circumstances.

The democrat politicians talking points were that the tax reforms will not help the economy and would add to the deficit. All of our mentally challenged liberal democrats here have bought into this hook line and sinker, they agree with their manipulators. Well... we shall see what the real outcome will be.

Mr Smith will hold these mentally challenged liberals feet to the fire on this. You can count on it.

He'll especially lambast you foolish liberals when President Trump wins reelection in 2020. He'll drop in occasionally to report on Trump successes in the next seven years.

I'm sure Mr Smith's comments on the Trump administration's successes will be eagerly anticipated by all. He'll be especially delighted to read all of our mentally challenged lib's feeble rebuttals...

 

70% of taxpayers will see more money in their check.
The economy will receive more help.
The American citizen and our country will benefit.

 

i'm not American and i've never been to America but this is very exciting!

 

Your predictions do not conform to the economic history of the United States. The only Democrat president who reduced the top tax rate was Lyndon Johnson. Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama raised the top tax rate.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

From 1920 to 2002 there was over twice as much economic growth under Democrat presidents as under Republican presidents.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

From the presidencies to Harry Truman to that of George the Lesser there were usually more jobs created per year under Democrat presidents than Republican presidents. More jobs were created per year under Jimmy Carter than under Ronald Reagan. Many more jobs were created per year under Bill Clinton than under Reagan.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

According to The Wall Street Journal, "Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans."
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/11/06/what-an-obama-win-may-mean-for-stocks/

 

i [sic] refuse to accept doggos shit because he was a stormfront member and has made many statements aligning himself with the white power movement [sic]

- ridgerunner

I was banned from Stormfront for saying nice things about the Jews.

I love to anger Jew haters by reminding them of the high IQ averages of Jews and the subsequent prosperity of Jews.

I love to anger those who hate Orientals by reminding them that Orientals tend to be more intelligent and prosperous in the United States than white Gentiles. I am a white Gentile. White power advocates think I am a traitor to my race.

My opinions are based on facts, rather than feelings.

 

At critical points in history good leadership matters. The United States was very fortunate to have Franklin Roosevelt to nominate and elect in 1932.

I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I like both of them. The irrational hatred directed at both of them tells me that America's white working class is still not ready for a black or a woman president.

I agree more with Bernie Sanders. Unfortunately, he will probably too old to run in 2020. He does not seem to have an understudy.

 

you think Obama won from just black people vote-----

 

Here is the deal fellow citizens, ask not what your country can do for you, rather ask what can you do for the country.

Take a page from Randy Knights play book, Randy said, yes my taxes MAY go up, but I'd rather see the young people benefit from a stronger economy. In case anybody missed the reason for the tax reform bill, it is to stimulate and grow the economy.

Stop worrying about how much the rich will benefit and be glad the bill will pass. The rich pay 70 percent of the taxes, it should help them the most. Without the rich there wouldn't be any jobs for the middle class to earn a living.

Also I might add there is nothing stopping you from becoming part of the one percent.