Opinion of this tax plan

[OSR stands with Israel]

Get rid of nearly all deductions in the federal income tax bracket and make these the rates

$0- $35,000: 0%
$35,000-$75,000: 8%
$75,000- $250,000: 16%
$250,000- $ 1,000,100: 24%
above $1,000,000 - 32%

For business owners , or board members in a corporation you can offer them up to 50% deduction in their taxes(the deduction majority of the time isnt that big) if they hire more people then they lay off , hire people in the United States,and give your employees good salaries.

On the other hand if you lay off more people then you hire, or outsource more jobs then jobs you bring back from overseas your tax rate can go up by 50%.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Massive Freedom Plan of course

[NeverAgain]

I think it has good ideas, but massively important things like deductions need to stay.

I do support the latter idea of raising taxes on businesses of heavily outsourcing.

HT at this point, as the money to pay for this plan will come from very important public programs.

[Santander]

For business owners , or board members in a corporation you can offer them up to 50% deduction in their taxes(the deduction majority of the time isnt that big) if they hire more people then they lay off , hire people in the United States,and give your employees good salaries.

How can you have corporations as separate entities when you tax its principals and officers based on the actions of the corporation?

You say that you want to "eliminate nearly all deductions", yet you're suggesting a massive deduction that has loopholes you could sail an oil tanker through. Not only is this massively open to abuse, but even if it functioned correctly, it would mean that taxpayers subsidize winners while further punishing losers. This is government interference in the free market in the worst possible sense.

Sorry, but I think this is an awful "idea".

[OSR stands with Israel]

For business owners , or board members in a corporation you can offer them up to 50% deduction in their taxes(the deduction majority of the time isnt that big) if they hire more people then they lay off , hire people in the United States,and give your employees good salaries.

How can you have corporations as separate entities when you tax its principals and officers based on the actions of the corporation?

You say that you want to "eliminate nearly all deductions", yet you're suggesting a massive deduction that has loopholes you could sail an oil tanker through. Not only is this massively open to abuse, but even if it functioned correctly, it would mean that taxpayers subsidize winners while further punishing losers. This is government interference in the free market in the worst possible sense.

Sorry, but I think this is an awful "idea".

how does that pick winners and loser, if you outsource and layoff jobs you deserve to be taxed more and this tax plan gives an incentive to hire more people which would stimulate the economy even more.

And FYI: you only get a 50% tax break if you double your workforce in that year, and clearly raise salaries for most workers. Most people will get like a 10% cut in taxes

[This account no longer in use.]

There are some bad parts of it, but overall, it's pretty good.

[DC Al Fine]

Get rid of nearly all deductions in the federal income tax bracket and make these the rates

$0- $35,000: 0%
$35,000-$75,000: 8%
$75,000- $250,000: 16%
$250,000- $ 1,000,100: 24%
above $1,000,000 - 32%

For business owners , or board members in a corporation you can offer them up to 50% deduction in their taxes(the deduction majority of the time isnt that big) if they hire more people then they lay off , hire people in the United States,and give your employees good salaries.

On the other hand if you lay off more people then you hire, or outsource more jobs then jobs you bring back from overseas your tax rate can go up by 50%.

Can you provide some more details? There really isn't enough information for me to make a judgment. Here are some questions I have.

1) Are the rates/income by household income, by person, or are they based on the current US system?

2) Are these the corporate tax rates as well?

3) How are dividends, capital gains, and self-employed sole proprietor income?

4) What deductions would you keep?

[DC Al Fine]

Also, Santander's right about the employment incentive. This sort of plan would be nasty in an economic downturn and would probably exacerbate recessions.

e.g. Company X is profitable but has a lot of money tied up in capital. A recession hits, and while they are still making some profit, they have to lay off some people to remain solvent. Except now they have to come up with an extra $10 million in income taxes during a credit crunch, potentially endangering the company.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Get rid of nearly all deductions in the federal income tax bracket and make these the rates

$0- $35,000: 0%
$35,000-$75,000: 8%
$75,000- $250,000: 16%
$250,000- $ 1,000,100: 24%
above $1,000,000 - 32%

For business owners , or board members in a corporation you can offer them up to 50% deduction in their taxes(the deduction majority of the time isnt that big) if they hire more people then they lay off , hire people in the United States,and give your employees good salaries.

On the other hand if you lay off more people then you hire, or outsource more jobs then jobs you bring back from overseas your tax rate can go up by 50%.

Can you provide some more details? There really isn't enough information for me to make a judgment. Here are some questions I have.

1) Are the rates/income by household income, by person, or are they based on the current US system?

2) Are these the corporate tax rates as well?

3) How are dividends, capital gains, and self-employed sole proprietor income?

4) What deductions would you keep?

The rates are by house hold income
No buisness owners share of the company counts as their income and are charged on that
Capital gains taxes  and dividends tax stay the same
I would just keep the college , housing , medical expense deduction and This new deduction

[OSR stands with Israel]

Also, Santander's right about the employment incentive. This sort of plan would be nasty in an economic downturn and would probably exacerbate recessions.

e.g. Company X is profitable but has a lot of money tied up in capital. A recession hits, and while they are still making some profit, they have to lay off some people to remain solvent. Except now they have to come up with an extra $10 million in income taxes during a credit crunch, potentially endangering the company.

You could put in the law during recesssions you can make the penalty less strict and make the incentive to hire people even more

[Derpist]

Also, Santander's right about the employment incentive. This sort of plan would be nasty in an economic downturn and would probably exacerbate recessions.

e.g. Company X is profitable but has a lot of money tied up in capital. A recession hits, and while they are still making some profit, they have to lay off some people to remain solvent. Except now they have to come up with an extra $10 million in income taxes during a credit crunch, potentially endangering the company.

You could put in the law during recesssions you can make the penalty less strict and make the incentive to hire people even more

You could also cut hours instead of hiring people. I have no sympathy for the companies.

[Antonio the Sixth]

01000111 101001010

[Santander]

The rates are by house hold income
No buisness owners share of the company counts as their income and are charged on that
Capital gains taxes  and dividends tax stay the same
I would just keep the college , housing , medical expense deduction and This new deduction

So you're calling for the abolition of corporate taxes because you are saying that all businesses should become pass through entities (i.e. non-entities) for for tax purposes. You do realize that shares for publicly-traded companies exchange hands countless times over the course of a year, right? How exactly do you propose attributing earnings to all of those people?

You could put in the law during recesssions you can make the penalty less strict and make the incentive to hire people even more

In other words, arbitrarily adjust taxation law based on economic statistics that are calculated on a quarterly basis. Republicans sometimes blow things out of proportion when they say that unpredictable tax policy scares off investment, but you are advocating to do exactly that.

[DC Al Fine]

Yeah I'm inclined to agree with Santander. The only way your deduction works is if you introduce a huge amount of uncertainty, which is even worse than high tax rates for investments.

[Intell]

This is beyond horrid, and punishes the non-business orientated and vulnerable people in society.

[DC Al Fine]

Yeah I'm inclined to agree with Santander. The only way your deduction works is if you introduce a huge amount of uncertainty, which is even worse than high tax rates for investments.

Also, if you want to subsidize wage labour, its far easier to just pay companies $X/hr for every new hire/decent wage hour worked.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is beyond horrid, and punishes the non-business orientated and vulnerable people in society.

WHY lol if you make under 75,000 you pay an 8% tax, and business have every incentive to hire you at a good wage

[DC Al Fine]

This is beyond horrid, and punishes the non-business orientated and vulnerable people in society.

WHY lol if you make under 75,000 you pay an 8% tax, and business have every incentive to hire you at a good wage

Your plan gives tax cuts to literally everyone.

I don't have an economic model in front of me, but at first glance it looks like it falls into the left wing trap, of ignoring the fact that the rich simply cannot finance the welfare state on their own. The middle must also contribute.

I'm not sure if that was your intention for the plan. Personally, I avoid getting into specific numbers for that reason. Most people don't have the information to create good tax plans, so they're better discussing deduction, loopholes and general principals.

[DC Al Fine]

To add to my previous points...

I'm an accountant and a large part of my job is tax planning for small businesses. This plan would create all sorts of weird results for my clients. Bob the welder hires his wife to do the books and gets a tax break. Then his wife decides to stay home with the kids. He hires a bookkeeping service and gets a big tax hike. etc, etc.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is beyond horrid, and punishes the non-business orientated and vulnerable people in society.

WHY lol if you make under 75,000 you pay an 8% tax, and business have every incentive to hire you at a good wage

Your plan gives tax cuts to literally everyone.

I don't have an economic model in front of me, but at first glance it looks like it falls into the left wing trap, of ignoring the fact that the rich simply cannot finance the welfare state on their own. The middle must also contribute.

I'm not sure if that was your intention for the plan. Personally, I avoid getting into specific numbers for that reason. Most people don't have the information to create good tax plans, so they're better discussing deduction, loopholes and general principals.

who said the welfare state would still be as large as today. There would be a lot less spending for it and the military as well.

[Intell]

This is beyond horrid, and punishes the non-business orientated and vulnerable people in society.

WHY lol if you make under 75,000 you pay an 8% tax, and business have every incentive to hire you at a good wage

Your plan gives tax cuts to literally everyone.

I don't have an economic model in front of me, but at first glance it looks like it falls into the left wing trap, of ignoring the fact that the rich simply cannot finance the welfare state on their own. The middle must also contribute.

I'm not sure if that was your intention for the plan. Personally, I avoid getting into specific numbers for that reason. Most people don't have the information to create good tax plans, so they're better discussing deduction, loopholes and general principals.

who said the welfare state would still be as large as today. There would be a lot less spending for it and the military as well.

Which is exactly why my point stands.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is beyond horrid, and punishes the non-business orientated and vulnerable people in society.

WHY lol if you make under 75,000 you pay an 8% tax, and business have every incentive to hire you at a good wage

Your plan gives tax cuts to literally everyone.

I don't have an economic model in front of me, but at first glance it looks like it falls into the left wing trap, of ignoring the fact that the rich simply cannot finance the welfare state on their own. The middle must also contribute.

I'm not sure if that was your intention for the plan. Personally, I avoid getting into specific numbers for that reason. Most people don't have the information to create good tax plans, so they're better discussing deduction, loopholes and general principals.

who said the welfare state would still be as large as today. There would be a lot less spending for it and the military as well.

Which is exactly why my point stands.

Instead there will be more people employed with higher wages , and they pay drastically lower taxes . Oh the horror about that

[Intell]

This is beyond horrid, and punishes the non-business orientated and vulnerable people in society.

WHY lol if you make under 75,000 you pay an 8% tax, and business have every incentive to hire you at a good wage

Your plan gives tax cuts to literally everyone.

I don't have an economic model in front of me, but at first glance it looks like it falls into the left wing trap, of ignoring the fact that the rich simply cannot finance the welfare state on their own. The middle must also contribute.

I'm not sure if that was your intention for the plan. Personally, I avoid getting into specific numbers for that reason. Most people don't have the information to create good tax plans, so they're better discussing deduction, loopholes and general principals.

who said the welfare state would still be as large as today. There would be a lot less spending for it and the military as well.

Which is exactly why my point stands.

Instead there will be more people employed with higher wages , and they pay drastically lower taxes . Oh the horror about that

That's not how the world works.

[Human]

There are some bad parts of it, but overall, it's pretty good.