Coffee heat rising

Tax Cuts Coming? Depends on Who You Are…

So we’ve been promised massive tax cuts, hallelujah! And presumably our new President was elected at least partially on the strength of those promises.

Ah, yes. Campaign promises… In the entire history of this country, has even one of them ever been true?

Now we see, studying Mr. Trump’s tax plan, that if you’re a single parent earning $75,000 with two kids who are out of day-care, your taxes would rise by more than $2400.

A married couple earning $50,000, with two school-aged children and no child care costs, would see a tax increase of about $150. A millionaire would get a tax cut of around $317,000. And about half the benefits of the Trump tax cuts will go to the one-percenters.



12 thoughts on “Tax Cuts Coming? Depends on Who You Are…”

  1. I guess without knowing the mechanics of how this would work it’s difficult to say if my taxes will increase a lot or a little. Either way, I’ll see an increase, like most folks. 🙁

  2. Trump’s tax plan is similar to the plan Gov. Brownback implemented in KS. Brownback argued lowering corporate income taxes (and eliminating LLC income taxes) would lead to massive growth and hiring in the state that would more than offset the reduced revenues. The reality is a little different. Revenues are down – way down – to the point services are being slashed to the bone. Opposite of explosive economic growth, the state has one of the lowest growth rates in the country and the lowest among its surrounding states. Businesses are not flocking to the state, in fact they’re leaving, because the state can no longer provide the services that companies are looking for to help attract employees.

    So to summarize, fewer jobs, broke state, wealthier business owners.

    • Right now the markets still seem to think business investors expect a bright enough future. Of course, the invariably skeptical CBS MarketWatch thinks otherwise — but half the time that bunch would have you buy gold! 😀 European and Asian markets are also rising this morning.

      That’s not to say that what’s good for bidness is necessarily good for America. On the other hand, though, it IS an indication of a degree of optimism. Here’s BBC’s interpretation:

  3. Let’s see how this pans out….Mr. Trump is not King….he is the President. The REAL power, IMHO, is in the House and Senate. Some call this “gridlock” others “democracy”…..

    • Yeah, but the situation is now different: the House and the Senate are now both controlled by the Republicans, and when Trump installs an anti-abortion justice on the Supreme Court, that will be theirs, too. So…no, he’s not king, but he’s as close to a king as anything we’ve had in generations. Whatever he wants, he’ll get his way.

  4. I couldn’t disagree more….Mr. Obama signed many executive orders to override the House and Senate….more than any President in recent memory. The Republicans have a majority….barely….But they must answer to their electorate. They can be voted out just as easily as they are voted in. These checks and balances were by design by our Forefathers. Not EVERY Republican has the same mind set or beliefs. There are many Republicans myself included who are for the rights of women and the right to decide what happens to their body… I would like to think that a Justice will be chosen based on their skills and having a balanced approach to decisions brought before them…..NOT based on just one issue.

    • Well, we’ll see. Trump himself is not a Tea-Partier. It’s unclear to me that he’s really even a Republican.

      But he has openly said that reversing Roe v Wade will be among his top priorities.

    • I don’t know where it originated, but I hear it all the time. Can we please stop the false narrative that Obama has issued more executive orders than any recent president? Looking at all presidents in office over the last 100 years Obama has the fourth lowest number of executive orders (only Kennedy, Ford, and Bush Sr. have fewer). If one calculates the average number of executive orders issued per year in office, Obama has the lowest average per year.

  5. Thank you for the clarity MD….It appears you are correct….Wow…it also appears the Roosevelts….Teddy and Franklin were a bit “heavy handed” though…..Genetics??

  6. LOL! Great exchange, MD & JestJack.

    The table focuses on numbers of orders/President, so it doesn’t show exactly what those orders addressed or did.

    Franklin D, of course, was Prez during WWII, which might have required more than the normal outpouring of presidential orders — although he issued twice as many as Woodrow Wilson did during WWI. Still: in WWI no US territory was directly attacked, and they didn’t have to decide whether to drop nuclear bombs on civilian populations.

    Teddy didn’t have war as an excuse, but he did occupy the office during a time of violent labor strife.

    Anyway, depending on what Obama accomplished by executive order, it’s possible the Tea Party can’t undo his ENTIRE accomplishment.

    The fact remains, though, that SOMETHING is going to have to be done about the healthcare act, whether it’s throwing it all out and starting over again or whether it’s revising to make it more fair for middle-income earners. Replacing it with Medicare or a Medicare-like plan doesn’t seem to be in the cards, given that many Republicans are bound & determined to get rid of Medicare.

  7. Looking at the number or orders, the general trend appears to be that presidents in times of war and/or economic turmoil issue more executive orders than those who serve in relatively more peaceful and prosperous times. FDR was president from 1933 until he died 3 months into his 4th term in 1945. Automatically we would expect his numbers to be skewed higher given that he was in office for a little over 12 years, but then overlapping that with the Great Depression/New Deal and WWII it appears he was quite prolific at issuing orders.

    I agree, Funny, something needs to be done regarding healthcare costs. Younger, relatively healthier people my age are not signing up for Obamacare because it costs too much. Ultimately, I think the market model will be the downfall of Obamacare because it does nothing to combat the underlying high cost of healthcare in the US. All we’ve done is allowed sicker people to become insured to consume more of the high-cost health care. As with any risk pooling, the weakest (the sick) are subsidized by the strongest (the young/healthy). The problem is that, while young people may be the strongest in health, they’re the weakest financially. The strongest people financially; however, are not participating in Obamacare because they’re receiving employer sponsored insurance. For any program to be successful, I think it’s going to have to address those two issues. I struggle to think of a plan that solves for those problems that isn’t some form of single-payer/universal healthcare. I give a greater probability to a blizzard in Phoenix than I do that the US will adopt single-payer healthcare in the next 4 years.

    • One finger after another right on one ACA problem after another.

      Ahem. You know…it’s never too late to run for President of the United States, MD…

Comments are closed.