As a follow up ā it turns out that this order gives Ms DeVos 300 days to review the various ways the government works with state & local government in regards to public education.
So, basically, she gets a year to say the things sheās already been saying. A fake EO so he can say he ātook action on educationā in his first 100 days.
Well this sounds amazingā¦
ā¦ly bad.
I donāt know much about economics, but I know what happens in Sim City when I start messing with the tax levers: nothing good.
The NYT is being very generous in describing this as lowering the tax burden for everyone. It causes the taxes on rich individuals to basically vanish: removing the estate tax, alternate minimum tax, taxing foreign investments by US companies, the ACA tax on investment income, etc. Itās a massive windfall for very wealthy people. Without taxing investment gains, estate income, gifts, etc. there is no middle class whatsoever globally.
I also notice he did this with zero commitment to the nationalist tax agenda, in fact is strengthens globalist playing shell games internationally while encouraging them simply live in the US.
Do he have one of these too?
China? That was easy!
Syria? That was easy!
North Korea? ā¦
Damn, I had to read the story, about how the butler brings it. Now I canāt scrub this image of L. Ron Hubbard, playing rajah in England.
Yeah. It sure sounds flowery but I certainly donāt trust any sort of tax plan from someone that wonāt release their own taxes. From what Iāve read - and letās be clear, this āplanā is a 1 page document at this point - this all sounds colossally bad for everybody other than super rich. But you just know the low information Conservatives are gonna love it (yay, reduced biz taxes! Bigger standard deduction!).
Yeah, thatās the phrase for it.
Itās like, how did nobody think of these wonderful solutions sooner, right?
Hereās a less generous take on this plan
Estimated $5.5 trillion hit:
How any āconservativeā can be for this will be an interesting bit of mental gymnastics.
This document they released is a joke.
Reducing the 7 tax brackets to 3 tax brackets of 10%, 25% and 35%
The top rate would be 12% lower than the current 39.6. Itās very important to get more detail because, depending on the positioning of the brackets, they might actually intend to increase the rate for some. Say, the $9k - 38k bracket now at 15% up to that 25%.
Doubling the standard deduction
Iām suspicious of this one. But we should actually engage with these details. This seems to be the populist sauce on top of all the shit. (Congressional Republicans will never go for it; they eat shit for breakfast.)
Providing tax relief for families with child and dependent care expenses
In the same way as the Tax Policy Center (I think it was, based on the campaign proposal) found would give the typical low-income family a benefit of $10? Thanks, Ivanka!
Eliminate targeted tax breaks that mainly benefit the wealthiest taxpayers
Iām assuming that means carried interest. Iāll believe it when I see it passed into law.
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax
This is a massive payout to the wealthy. You can justify it on simplification grounds, but not when paired with the rest of the details of the proposal. This is something like $1 trillion over 10 years, going 90% to those with income over 100k. Also, the AMT is indexed now, so it doesnāt present a bracket creep problem (it is complex, though).
Repeal the death tax
Another massive payout to the wealthy.
Repeal the 3.8% Obamacare tax that hits small businesses and investment income
Iām really not surprised they want to repeal this, since itās a Democratic pay-for thatās pretty narrowly targeted at high-income taxpayers. But this is yet another thing to add to the fiscal hole 45 is creating for himself.
15% business tax rate
Corporations are better than people!
News reports all say this will also apply to individual business income, S-corps, partnerships and LLCs. Has a 10-year cost of at least another $3 trillion. 
Territorial tax system to level the playing field for American companies
That one is actually needed, from what I know of it. But I have to admit lack of knowledge in this area. Having a worldwide system when just about every other country uses territorial does seem to put US companies at a disadvantage.
One-time tax on trillions of dollars held overseas
At pennies on the dollar, no doubt.
Eliminate tax breaks for special interests
Yeah, right! Thereās a reason they threw this vague one in at the very end.
Trumpās previous tax plan:
Trump material starts at 5:13
Steve Mnuchin has no idea what youāre talking about!
Some folks question his mental stability, but it takes effort to come up with that many blatant, infuriatingly inflammatory lies within such short a time, especially for the Leader of the Free World with so much on his plate!
He must have had an epic turd to pinch.
I had to do research to see what he was even talking about with āinsurance company bailouts.ā Notice I had to find a fact-check about Rubio to learn what he means.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/25/marco-rubio/rubio-we-wiped-out-obamacare-bailout-fund-insuranc/[quote=Risky Business]What Rubio calls a bailout is actually a part of the Affordable Care Act known as ārisk corridors.ā
When the health care law started requiring insurance companies to sell policies to everyone (even sick people with pre-existing conditions), those companies were caught in a tough spot. They didnāt know how much to charge in premiums to cover expenses for all those new policies.
So the law set up a three-year period, from 2014 to 2016, during which the government would spread the risk for insurers in the new lawās marketplaces while they adjusted premiums. This program is known as risk corridors.
If a company is good at setting its rates and make more than a certain amount, they pay Washington some of their extra money. These are called user fees. If a company is not so good at setting rates and loses money, the government would cover some of their losses.
Thatās the bailout to which Rubio is referring. He started calling it a ābailoutā for unsuccessful insurance companies in 2013, the same year he introduced an ill-fated bill in the Senate to repeal the program.
But letās be clear: Several experts told us risk corridors arenāt a bailout. A bailout is usually a program that saves a company after the fact. Risk corridors are a mechanism that was put in place to deal with a problem that everyone assumes could occur.
And they arenāt new, either. The risk corridors program was modeled after a successful plan that was part of George W. Bushās Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage, albeit slightly different than the Obamacare version. No one referred to that as a bailout.
ā¦
Whether it will really kill Obamacare is up for debate. Some legal scholars have said all the rider did was highlight a problem the law already had and prevent a workaround. Two years ago, the Congressional Budget Office said the risk corridors will likely eventually break even by 2016.
If the program doesnāt, CMS will have to find the money somehow or ask Congress to make an appropriation to pay insurers. Otherwise, insurers could sue to get those payments. An Oregon insurance company that is no longer offering marketplace plans did just that on Feb. 24, suing the government for $5 billion over missed risk corridors payments.[/quote]
If they doubled the standard deduction, mortgage interest would no longer be (effectively) tax deductible for most Americans. For example, we pay about $15,000 a year in mortgage interest. If the standard deduction becomes $25,000, we donāt need to deduct that interest-which lowers the motive for buying a house. Now, itās true that if we got that deduction, weād have more money to buy a house, but Iām very skeptical that my actual taxes will be lower in the end. And, of course, they are talking about not making property taxes deductible; same reaction.
An interesting article from 2013 about the swing behind the Republican lines on universal health-care:
(Sadly ideas are no longer a requirement.)
Canāt someone explain to him that once you win the election you have to at least pretend you think all citizens are equal?
