The tax proposition isn't half bad, a lot simpler
>15% corporate tax rate
>3 brackets; 10%, 25%, and 33%. zero tax on the first $24k. Might encourage a white baby boom.
I like it. What do you all think are the chances of this plan passing congress?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): DA1A54B35327CE64600957A7855BA3FF-136926.jpg (133.7 KB, 1334x750, hillary_died_a_little.jpg)
>>16771
>zero tax on the first $24k.
Forgot to mention that it's for married couples. Will probably favor whites by a lot as blacks are not known to hold stable families. Not sure how it will effect Mexicans.
>zero tax on the first $24k.
Forgot to mention that it's for married couples. Will probably favor whites by a lot as blacks are not known to hold stable families. Not sure how it will effect Mexicans.
>stimulating family units
PRAISE THE GOD EMPEROR
The 15%, how does it compare to existing tax rates? Are those the unnavigatable mess that's simplified in the proposal?
I'm really curious to see how hard the left will go against the clause that specifies married couples and what arguments they will use. It better not be something about strong independent women who need no man.
PRAISE THE GOD EMPEROR
The 15%, how does it compare to existing tax rates? Are those the unnavigatable mess that's simplified in the proposal?
I'm really curious to see how hard the left will go against the clause that specifies married couples and what arguments they will use. It better not be something about strong independent women who need no man.
>>16771
I've been advocating for a tax plan like this for a while. Most of the Republican candidates were proposing some type of three bracket structure in 2015, only real debate was over what the rates should be set at. If a plan that literally every Republican seems to agree with can't get through a Republican controlled Congress then clearly the next step is to start on getting that swamp drained. I think it will pass though, this should be popular and the left is going to have a hard time turning people against it.
>>16787
My personal taxes should go down from 15% to 10%. I haven't seen the exact income levels for who goes into what bracket, if someone has that I'd be interested in taking a look. However I suspect I'm likely to remain in the 10% bracket even if I get the job I'm hoping to get, which would bump me into the 25% bracket under the current tax structure.
>>16848
I'm sure they'll find some way to spin this into an attack on gay marriage or gay rights or something, the same way they spin anything Republicans do that has the word "marriage" in it. I think once people start seeing how much money they have after taxes they won't care though, particularly since those "strong independent women" will be paying the same low rates as strong independent men.
I've been advocating for a tax plan like this for a while. Most of the Republican candidates were proposing some type of three bracket structure in 2015, only real debate was over what the rates should be set at. If a plan that literally every Republican seems to agree with can't get through a Republican controlled Congress then clearly the next step is to start on getting that swamp drained. I think it will pass though, this should be popular and the left is going to have a hard time turning people against it.
>>16787
My personal taxes should go down from 15% to 10%. I haven't seen the exact income levels for who goes into what bracket, if someone has that I'd be interested in taking a look. However I suspect I'm likely to remain in the 10% bracket even if I get the job I'm hoping to get, which would bump me into the 25% bracket under the current tax structure.
>>16848
I'm sure they'll find some way to spin this into an attack on gay marriage or gay rights or something, the same way they spin anything Republicans do that has the word "marriage" in it. I think once people start seeing how much money they have after taxes they won't care though, particularly since those "strong independent women" will be paying the same low rates as strong independent men.
>>16848
>I'm really curious to see how hard the left will go against the clause that specifies married couples and what arguments they will use. It better not be something about strong independent women who need no man
Their argument will be that it's racist and discriminates against the black culture of fatherless families.
>I'm really curious to see how hard the left will go against the clause that specifies married couples and what arguments they will use. It better not be something about strong independent women who need no man
Their argument will be that it's racist and discriminates against the black culture of fatherless families.
>>16894
I haven't seen any, but I haven't really been looking. That's just my best guess for how they'll kvetch and moan.
I haven't seen any, but I haven't really been looking. That's just my best guess for how they'll kvetch and moan.
>>16771
The best part of the tax plan, one not mentioned in the OP, is that tax deductions are vastly reduced, at least for higher income earners. That will make a massive difference, as rich people abuse the hell out of the tax deduction system to pay less in average taxes than the average middle class tax payer
The best part of the tax plan, one not mentioned in the OP, is that tax deductions are vastly reduced, at least for higher income earners. That will make a massive difference, as rich people abuse the hell out of the tax deduction system to pay less in average taxes than the average middle class tax payer
File (): BEEAAE3B8A6EE5F83DA871C50762CB34-209624.gif (204.7 KB, 600x500, eweihfkjhsdkjf.gif)
I support a flat tax because I am flat broke
12 replies | 2 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived