Trump Tax Cuts to Expire in 2025

So what does this mean to the average voter if the next President just lets them go? I’m sure all of you had no issues with the 20%+ over all increase in costs under Biden, so let’s see how much more taxes you will pay under the next President.

Top tax rate over 578k will go back to 39% and increase of around 7%

231k to 578k stays the same under both at 35% so no gain or loss there.

182k to 231k goes back up 3% more taxes to match what was before Trump.

Not really bad so far……but wait….,

The 95k to 182k will pay a whopping 15% more in taxes, have fun with that.

44k to 95k also gets hit with a nice 12% increase

11k to 44k will now pay 20% more, damn Trump for lowering this one so much!

Under 11k no change at 10%

It’s sad a person only making 44k after deductions will be spending about 40%+ more to live in 2025 than 2020 I’m sure their pay raises have kept up. I’m being kind only saying 40%….

Cheers

a reply to: Xtrozero

They're intentionally killing the middle class. It pretty much already is just the wealthy and everyone else now. And that usually doesn't end well.

We need to drastically reduce spending and taxes.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Unfortunately they have to go up unless congress can reduce spending.

Tax is a dirty word, and considering what it’s spent on I can empathize with comparing it to theft.

When I think about my interactions with government, it’s a vast majority state and local. Roads, schools, emergency services, courts, ect. The only time I interact with the Feds is when I have to file taxes to see they take the lions share.

But, we’ve been increasing our debt at an alarming rate. Either the taxes go up or spending goes down. There isn’t much room for compromise. Taking tax cuts while leaving spending the way it is is no different than using a credit card. That interest just get passed to us or future generations at a higher amount than if we had ran on debit. It’s a big reason why a lot of things including spending is so inflated, because of debt from previous fiscal years.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Government does not spend the current tax dollars wisely.

Anyone supporting an increase in taxes is a fool or an employee of government.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xtrozero

Government does not spend the current tax dollars wisely.

Anyone supporting an increase in taxes is a fool or an employee of government.

Decreasing taxes doesn’t decrease spending. Would you agree that the spending has to be accounted for at some point?

So which has to be done first, decreasing spending or taxes? Because a deficit just means we spend even more to pay the interest as well. Interest payments has been the fastest growing portion of the federal budget. Granted, it’s only between 1-2% of GDP right now, but our deficit has exploded in the last few decades along with interest rates. Decisions today will make a huge impact on this discussion years down the road.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I guess you missed my first sentence.

I understand.

There are two of them.

It gets confusing.

a reply to: DBCowboy

So until we have a political option that will decrease spending it seems we’re stuck with going back to a higher tax rate to pay for the record spending of the current, and last two admins.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: DBCowboy

So until we have a political option that will decrease spending it seems we’re stuck with going back to a higher tax rate to pay for the record spending of the current, and last two admins.

Do YOU see government suddenly starting to spend our money wisely?

lol

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: DBCowboy

So until we have a political option that will decrease spending it seems we’re stuck with going back to a higher tax rate to pay for the record spending of the current, and last two admins.

Do YOU see government suddenly starting to spend our money wisely?

lol

Absolutely not. It’s the main reason I despise the two parties.

But a lot of this discussion isn’t just about spending, which implies current and future. It also pertains to money that was already spent or more accurately allocated to spend since we run on a big margin of credit.

I’d love to see smart fiscal policy, and a massive cut to spending. But the only way to achieve that is to take care of the deficit too before the interest payments balloon out of control.

On our current trajectory, if we cut taxes now they’ll just have to print money to pay what we owe, and that leads to inflation which is a hidden tax. There’s no hiding from the taxes, there’s only addressing the past debt and future spending to lower our liability. But very few in politics talk about that, only cutting taxes for a very short term relief at the expense of long term.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The spending needs to be addressed first. And that can be accomplished by cutting the size of the Federal government.

Most of the departments and agencies can be axed completely, and the remaining ones need to be reduced by 50% or more.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The spending needs to be addressed first. And that can be accomplished by cutting the size of the Federal government.

Most of the departments and agencies can be axed completely, and the remaining ones need to be reduced by 50% or more.

I agree 100%. There’s massive bloat in the federal government.

A vast majority of American do most of their interaction with local and state. There’s no reason the federal government should be taxing us to the ratio they do, but we have to downsize them before we can see the tax cut on the backend.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The spending needs to be addressed first. And that can be accomplished by cutting the size of the Federal government.

Most of the departments and agencies can be axed completely, and the remaining ones need to be reduced by 50% or more.

I agree 100%. There’s massive bloat in the federal government.

A vast majority of American do most of their interaction with local and state. There’s no reason the federal government should be taxing us to the ratio they do, but we have to downsize them before we can see the tax cut on the backend.

How many jobs will be lost?

The need for people is becoming obsolete.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The spending needs to be addressed first. And that can be accomplished by cutting the size of the Federal government.

Most of the departments and agencies can be axed completely, and the remaining ones need to be reduced by 50% or more.

I agree 100%. There’s massive bloat in the federal government.

A vast majority of American do most of their interaction with local and state. There’s no reason the federal government should be taxing us to the ratio they do, but we have to downsize them before we can see the tax cut on the backend.

How many jobs will be lost?

The need for people is becoming obsolete.

I’m not sure, but if a job isn’t providing value, it’s not my concern if we have to cut them to save the country as a whole.

We’re not just talking about their job and salary, but whole redundant departments or agencies.

The IRS for example could probably lose 75% or more of its weight if we just eliminated loopholes and created a well defined tax structure.

It could still be scalable like it is today, but no more deductions, you get taxed x% of profit. No loopholes, no deductions. In its current form a lot of people aren’t even paying their share anyways, so why this huge bloated agency if the tax code is written in such a convoluted way it can be skirted all together?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The spending needs to be addressed first. And that can be accomplished by cutting the size of the Federal government.

Most of the departments and agencies can be axed completely, and the remaining ones need to be reduced by 50% or more.

I agree 100%. There’s massive bloat in the federal government.

A vast majority of American do most of their interaction with local and state. There’s no reason the federal government should be taxing us to the ratio they do, but we have to downsize them before we can see the tax cut on the backend.

How many jobs will be lost?

The need for people is becoming obsolete.

how many useless jobs will be lost is the key point to this. Government jobs aren't free rides, or at least shouldn't be.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I just think it's about the economists in Bidens ear that blame the deficit partially on the 2017 TCJA. Which most economists are against. It works during a disease free bull market but not so well during bear markets and Chinese biological warfare.




The goal being to bring these lines together, so sayeth the Whitehouse budget something .gov page.

I will be forever f*cked by my tax obligation, so it really doesn't matter what the rate is for me. But I imagine the more liquid person making 50k is pretty pissed about a 25% increase ($1,500 more).

Partisan politics aside this prediction was made in 2016, under Obama still.

The 2016 deficit stems from a structural mismatch between revenues and spending: entitlement spending and interest costs are growing much faster than revenues. Between 2015 and 2016, CBO projects that revenues will grow by $26 billion, while spending will grow by $178 billion. Mandatory programs and interest costs represent the vast majority — 93 percent — of the spending increase.

CBO projects that:

The budget deficit will reach $590 billion this year, growing as a share of GDP for the first time since 2009 and increasing by $152 billion since 2015.

Over the next 10 years, debt will continue to climb significantly, reaching 86 percent of GDP in 2026 — more than double the 50-year historic average of 39 percent.

Over the next 10 years, net interest costs will significantly increase, totaling $4.8 trillion.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Xtrozero

They're intentionally killing the middle class. It pretty much already is just the wealthy and everyone else now. And that usually doesn't end well.

We need to drastically reduce spending and taxes.

You've identified the right problem but the wrong solution.

A week ago I referenced an article that described the problem quantitatively:

www.gobankingrates.com...

Here's the main point of the article--the disposable income per capita in constant 2023 dollars (adjusted for inflation) under each of the Presidents from 1963 to the present:
Biden: $46,557
Trump: $48,286
Obama: $48,811
Bush Jr.: $49,141
Clinton: $53,895
Bush Sr.: $54,005
Reagan: $60,887
Carter: $67,143
Ford: $95,602
Nixon: $110,961
LBJ: $130,520

The real purchasing power of the average working person today is only about 35% of what it was in 1963 and it didn't matter whether an R or D President was in office; disposable income went down every Presidential term for the last 60 years and still is.

Meanwhile, the disposable income of the top 1% has grown at greater than the GDP growth rate. A RAND Corporation report from 2020 showed that the main reason for this redistribution of almost 50 Trillion dollars to the wealthiest 1% is the adoption of "trickle down" tax laws which were advanced in their most aggressive form under Reagan.

www.rand.org...

A single head of household earning the average disposable income today would have paid about 22% in federal taxes. While I'm sure that hypothetical average person would enjoy paying less in taxes, there's no amount of reduction in taxes for that person that would make up for the transfer of wealth that has occurred in the last 60 years due to the tax laws that favored the billionaires. Even if their tax rate went to zero, they would still have less than half the effective disposable income they would have had in 1963. You can't do it by reducing taxes on the working class; you have to increase their income. There just isn't enough economic opportunity to go around these days for anyone in the bottom part of the wealth distribution. And that's the result of conscious legislative decisions over a period of at least 60 years to give more opportunity to the very people who are able to buy legislators.

Also--and I know this isn't going to be popular here--it's not feasible to cut government enough to make a dent in this problem. The idea that government can "spend its money more wisely" is a fantasy. Any random individual can identify stuff in the government that they don't like and would cut if the decision were up to them. Republican Presidential candidates routinely run on cutting social programs and Democrats routinely run on cutting military spending. But the decisions are not up to any individual. Never were and never will be in a Republic. So we will always have a compromise government budget that pisses off some people on both sides of the aisle and funds stuff that one side of the other thinks is unwise.

The only way to get back to a condition like in the 1950s and 1960s when the working class had a pretty good lifestyle would be to have tax laws like in the 50s and 60s which redistribute wealth back to the working class. Basically, reverse the process that got us to this condition.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The spending needs to be addressed first. And that can be accomplished by cutting the size of the Federal government.

Most of the departments and agencies can be axed completely, and the remaining ones need to be reduced by 50% or more.

I agree 100%. There’s massive bloat in the federal government.

A vast majority of American do most of their interaction with local and state. There’s no reason the federal government should be taxing us to the ratio they do, but we have to downsize them before we can see the tax cut on the backend.

How many jobs will be lost?

The need for people is becoming obsolete.

how many useless jobs will be lost is the key point to this. Government jobs aren't free rides, or at least shouldn't be.

Didn't say they were.

But they provide a lot of jobs.

Elimination aftermath. It's a real thing.

a reply to: Boomer1947

and yet the one constant is federal government growth. I have to wonder, does that impact our income any?

a reply to: Boomer1947

And taxes aren’t the reason for that demise in the time period, I’d be willing to bet in some cases taxes have decreased in certain ranges while disposable income (adjusted for inflation) has decreased.

My boy Ron Paul pointed out inflation is a hidden tax, and we’ve seen a lot of that since Nixon switched us to FIAT and enabled the fed to just print money to satisfy what the taxing can’t compared to spending. Boom, we paid but purchasing power is death by a thousand cuts each time we do that.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The spending needs to be addressed first. And that can be accomplished by cutting the size of the Federal government.

Most of the departments and agencies can be axed completely, and the remaining ones need to be reduced by 50% or more.

I agree 100%. There’s massive bloat in the federal government.

A vast majority of American do most of their interaction with local and state. There’s no reason the federal government should be taxing us to the ratio they do, but we have to downsize them before we can see the tax cut on the backend.

How many jobs will be lost?

The need for people is becoming obsolete.

how many useless jobs will be lost is the key point to this. Government jobs aren't free rides, or at least shouldn't be.

Didn't say they were.

But they provide a lot of jobs.

Elimination aftermath. It's a real thing.

do you know how many jobs could be lost if Trump isn't allowed to operate in NY? Are those jobs equally important?