This Trump fellow has the tax-cut two-step down perfectly

ap_gop_2016_trump_75419664-e1440768850837-1

In announcing his new tax-reform proposal, Donald Trump complained that “It’s going to cost me a fortune, which is actually true.”

No, it actually isn’t. In fact, having looked through his plan, I’m forced to conclude one of two things:

A. Multi-billionaire Donald Trump, a graduate of the Wharton School of Business as he often likes to remind us, has no grasp of finance, taxes, percentages and other basic economic concepts. He is in short economically illiterate; or

B. Trump is lying on a massive scale and he knows he’s lying. He not only knows he’s lying, he knows that you probably know that he’s lying. He just doesn’t care, because he suspects that you don’t really care either. Too often, he is correct in that assumption.

Whichever explanation you care to choose, the bottom line is that Trump’s plan would slash his personal tax burden by tens of millions of dollars annually on income estimated at somewhere between $250 million (Bloomberg’s guess) to $400 million (Trump’s public estimate.) The most obvious way in which his plan would cut his tax bill is by reducing the top income-tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, but that’s just one of many such provisions by which Trump would benefit.

In that sense, at least, his tax-reform proposal is yet another sign that Trump is morphing into a traditional Republican.  The tax-cut two-step adapted for modern conditions by Rubio, Bush and now Trump requires first a sober, heartfelt acknowledgement of the economic problems faced by middle-class and working Americans, the lack of income growth and opportunity, etc.. That expression of solidarity with the little people is then followed by a solution that amounts to major tax cuts for those already doing extremely well after taxes, which happens to be the exact same Republican plan they’ve been peddling for half a century. Trump merely played that same game more aggressively, repeatedly promising to raise taxes on the rich and Wall Street while in fact proposing a plan to do the exact opposite.

Here’s another odd thing: When the topic under debate is entitlement spending, Medicare, Social Security, etc., Republicans often don the mask of fiscal responsibility and explain that the federal deficit is such a massive problem that we have no choice but to make significant cuts in benefits. (When Trump bewails the deficit, he says we’re approaching “Greece on steroids.”)

Yet when debate shifts to tax cuts, particularly tax cuts for the wealthy, that very same deficit becomes a problem that is too insignificant to even talk about,  which sure is convenient since those same tax cuts would typically add trillions to the national debt. In Trump’s case, he asserts that “the Trump tax cuts are fully paid for,” then lists revenue steps that are woefully inadequate to make that claim even arguable.

Oh, and while Jeb! promises that his tax-cut plan would produce annual economic growth of 4 percent, Trump promises 6 percent.

Because 6 is more than 4.

Reader Comments 0

1129 comments
joewarner
joewarner

For you sir is there any answer other than more taxes which appears to be a left banner. Would you like to regress to older entitlements and see where we can reduce excess or just pile on more taxes and you appear Mr. Bookman to be smitten by OB 1% bull. What a political effort that was....got most of country down on it's most successful members and lost almost no votes in doing so and gaining what ? That was kewl and dirty...but so is politics.

Penses
Penses

@DownInAlbany 

"Then, like it or not, you are pro-choice."

Oh, but I am "pro-choice" (one cannot be a Christian and be otherwise) - just NOT in the way you mean. I believe people should exercise their choice prior to engaging in a sexual act leading to pregnancy, not afterwards (a point, curiously, that was once even made by someone like Chris Matthews).

 

Eye wonder
Eye wonder

@Penses @DownInAlbany

You need to stop concerning yourself so much with other peoples' sexual proclivities.  Unless, of course, voyeurism is your bag (which appears possible on the basis of your ramblings).

straker
straker

Penses - "do you mean tax money"


Is that the best answer you can give, tiny tot?

Normd
Normd

How did we get from Donald Trump's tax policy to a bunch of ignorant hick and rube Republicans? OH!  Wait....

Kamchak
Kamchak

My girlfriend's hairdresser's husband has an uncle that used to work with a guy who knew someone that was an assistant editor to a major newspaper for many years

Kamchak
Kamchak

And I have sat in on the meetings the editors had before going to press

stefpe
stefpe

@Numbers_R_Us "Those donors, Cruz added, also view the people who elected the Republican majorities in Congress "as a bunch of ignorant hicks and rubes."

Well based on what we see here on a daily basis...

straker
straker

It would be interesting to fully understand why so many of the cons here and elsewhere faithfully believe anything their political idols tell them and never ask for any evidence.


Maybe a serious lack of education and/or IQ?

barkingfrog
barkingfrog

@straker


They just want to believe and suspend all intelligent thought to do so.

ByteMe
ByteMe

@straker The dopamine hit for being "right" is addictive.

Kamchak
Kamchak

like the way slaves 

Slavery card -- predicted an hour or so ago.

The only card left is the Margaret Sanger card

straker
straker

Penses - "only morally repulsive behavior"


What hard evidence do you have that PP gets money to fund abortions?

Penses
Penses

@straker

"What hard evidence do you have that PP gets money to fund abortions?"

Huh? I guess I was assuming they don't do abortions for free. Do you mean tax money?

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@straker

That's not what he was talking about, even. He was talking about that stupid "how is babby farmed" business.

As if there were something "morally repulsive" about preserving tissue, organs, etc., so that others could live. 

It's been ages since the concept of organ transplants was especially controversial (it was, once upon a time); maybe Penses and his conservabuds would like to re-litigate that as well while they're at it?

Bulls_3y3
Bulls_3y3

PP says video edited from day one, where is their proof??? Lots of talk but no proof

Penses
Penses

@KUTGF

"Sweetie, you are really posting some buffoonery. If the full videos had evidence of criminal activity they would be admissible. Investigators looked at the edited videos and found them to have misrepresented and distorted the full videos."

As I said, Einsten, EDITED videos would NOT be admissible in court:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_evidence

I never claimed they showed CRIMINAL activity (only morally repulsive behavior - you know, like the way slaves used to be LEGALLY treated a century ago). Got it now? Good! You know, lawyers are supposed to comprehend what is claimed before arguing against what is claimed. BWAHAHAHA!

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@Penses @KUTGF

only morally repulsive behavior

You mean preserving fetal tissue from those doomed later-term abortions so that others might be able to live?

That "morally repulsive behavior"?


Penses
Penses

@Visual_Cortex 

I will stipulate that SOME late term abortion may be justifed. If only you knew one cannot generalize from one or a few instances - that doing so is engaging in falacious reasoning.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@Penses @Visual_Cortex

I will stipulate that SOME late term abortion may be justifed.

Well, good.

So why would you deny an opportunity for some small part of a doomed pregnancy to live on elsewhere? Why would that be morally repulsive? I'd think it just the opposite.

KUTGF
KUTGF

@Penses  No buffoon clown....  You should learn to use a brain.  I did not say that edited videos would be admissible.  As you quoted me.... I said FULL VIDEOS.


Edited videos are rarely admissible unless stipulated because as they are here, the editing can be deceptive. 


And really you want to idiotically claim that deceptively edited videos are proof of "morally repulsive behavior" for journalistic purposes. 


You might want to try not posting repeated stupidity.  GOT IT NOW?  Try not to be a buffoon again and again. 


You might try to comprehend reality. 

KUTGF
KUTGF

@Penses @KUTGF More your buffoonish word salad nonsense. 


Oh my, I might know more than you because I was on the staff of a newspaper in college.  I sat in many meetings with the editors myself.  In fact some of the journalists and journalism students I worked with hold positions in some quality newspapers. 

ByteMe
ByteMe

@Visual_Cortex He looooves fetuses... women and poor people, not so much.  "Moral" is relative to him.

Penses
Penses

 @KUTGF

"They would not pass journalistic muster because they were lies, distortions and faked."

They contain a great deal of factual and truthful information. Only an imbecilic lawyer would argue otherwise before a judge. What YOU fail to realize is that editing, by its very nature, distorts and misrepresents the truth. And headlines with "colorful" adjectives do the same. If you imagine journalists don't distort the truth, you are an ignoramus. I might know a little about it more than you; my brother was as assistant editor to a major newspaper for many years (I have sat in on the meetings the editors had before going to press).

straker
straker

Bulls - "no editing found"


WHO told you that?

KUTGF
KUTGF

@straker Encyclopedia Outofhisassica! as read to him in the bubble, sponsored by Fox!

Bulls_3y3
Bulls_3y3

PP video investigation shows no editing found... Only cuts to fit U-Tube format...

KUTGF
KUTGF

@Bulls_3y3 Oh sweetie, what a load of BS.  Its why you can't provide a link to that kind of stupidity.

TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

If you're saying that workers need a seat at the table, Jay, I think we all should agree. And since that would mean bringing back the unions (now that Scott Walker's gone) for a sustainable growth in demand-side wages, let's get at it, Hillary: We can get there from here!!

Bulls_3y3
Bulls_3y3

Cuba President Castro is demanding $1.1 trillion in reparations... Failed to discuss $7 billion stole from US back in the 60s...

idigalot
idigalot

Human rights issues in cuba = Gitmo.

Bulls_3y3
Bulls_3y3

All the human rights issues in Cuba but you ignore those abuses and attack America. Bravo commie

LeninTime
LeninTime

@Bulls_3y3 

Failed to discuss $7 billion stole from US back in the 60s...

**

Does that include reparations for the lives lost in the downing of the Cuban airliner in which the US was implicated or the long list of other violence perpetrated by the US against it? 

Or for the two dictatorships who were backed by US imperialism during the last century?

I mean how do you put a dollar value on the vast abuses committed by the US against the small island of Cuba?

stogiefogey
stogiefogey

@LeninTime @Bulls_3y3  Maybe they'll take back their convicts and mental patients that somehow got mixed in with the Mariel boatlift and call it even.

gotalife
gotalife

Iowa Democrats worry Bernie Sanders couldn't win a general election or tame Washington.

Love Sanders but they are right.

Taming Washington is the American voters job but do not think he can win the general..

ByteMe
ByteMe

One of the three super PACs supporting Rand Paul’s presidential campaign has stopped raising money, dealing a damaging blow to an already cash-starved campaign.

In a Tuesday telephone interview, Ed Crane, who oversees the group, PurplePAC, accused Paul of abandoning his libertarian views -- and suggested it was a primary reason the Kentucky senator had plummeted in the polls.

Story Continued Below

“I have stopped raising money for him until I see the campaign correct its problems,” said Crane, who co-founded the Cato Institute think tank and serves as its president emeritus. “I wasn’t going to raise money to spend on a futile crusade.”

“I don’t see the point in it right now,” he added.


NEXT!