Email

Why Trump’s Tax Plan is a Slap in the Face to the Middle Class

36 | By Shah Gilani

Donald Trump’s promise to “Make America Great Again” can’t be done without fixing the inordinate and unfair tax burden on the middle class.

Lopsided tax policies that grant more wealth-generating opportunities and more tax relief to the wealthiest Americans, while the vanishing middle class pays higher taxes to make up for the government’s loss of income on the nation’s top income earners and wealth accumulators have killed the American Dream for tens of millions of the country’s hardest working citizens.

Here’s what Donald Trump’s promising, why it’s a slap in the face to the middle class, and what we all should demand of the new President and his administration of uber-rich cronies.

Where the Money Is Now

Before we look at individual tax rates and policies, let me say this about the new President’s business tax promises, which we talked about at length on Wednesday.

On their own, they make sense. Cutting business taxes to promote business formation, increasing net profitability so companies can reinvest in their expansion, hire more workers and pay them more, makes good economic sense.

However, in the context of taxation in general, cutting business taxes almost immediately enriches business owners, corporate equity stakeholders, and shareholder “renters” who have the capital to play the markets long before the hoped for trickle-down effects of business tax cuts reach average wage-earning Americans.

In other words, business tax cuts are tax cuts for the upper-classes – especially the top 1%.

Speaking of the top 1%, Oxfam (an international confederation of charitable organizations) released a report this week to coincide with the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland that said the world’s eight richest billionaires control the same wealth between them as the poorest 3.6 billion people in the world.

Six of the eight, whose total worth is approximately $426.2 billion, are Americans who combined own 70% of that pile.

They are:

  • Microsoft founder Bill Gates with $75 billion
  • investor Warren Buffett worth $60.8 billion
  • Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos worth $45.2 billion
  • Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg with $44.6 billion
  • Oracle founder Larry Ellison worth $43.6 billion
  • Media mogul Michael Bloomberg with $40 billion.

The other two billionaires are:

  • Spanish retail magnate Amancio Ortega with $67 billion
  • Mexican investor Carlos Slim Helu worth $50 billion.

Being an entrepreneur and dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, I commend these billionaires for their success, which they richly deserve.

Who Truly Deserves a Break

My point is twofold; they don’t need a tax break and they can afford to pay more in taxes. The top 1% of wealthy Americans can afford to pay a lot more and the top 10% should pay more, too.

The middle class, meanwhile, isn’t making more money. Wages have been stagnant to actually slipping for more than a decade. They’ve had no tax relief to speak of, certainly not in relative terms. And what’s in Donald Trump’s proposed tax “simplification” plan is a joke.

Right now there are an array of federal tax brackets: 15%, 25%, 33%, 35% and 40%. Each bracket is broken down into three categories for single filers, heads of household, and married filing jointly.

The Trump plan calls for three brackets: 12%, 25%, and 33% and only two categories, single-filers and married and filing jointly. Trump’s plan also raises the initial amount for each of the tax brackets.

While the plan is simpler, it doesn’t give the middle class a break. In fact, I call it a slap in the face.

According to Lily Batchelder, a law professor at NYU and visiting fellow at the Tax Policy Center, recently interviewed by NPR, “A family earning between $40,000 and $50,000 a year would get a tax cut of only $560 and millions of middle class working families will see their tax bills rise under Trump’s plan – especially single-parent families.”

An extra $560 bucks to spend if you’re a family is a joke. It’s worse if you’re a single parent.

Batchelder calculates that a single parent earning $75,000 with two school-age children, would be slapped with a tax increase of over $2,400. The increase in taxes comes partly because “the Trump plan eliminates the $4,000 exemption for each person in a household.”

“If you look at the wealthiest, the top 1%would get about half of the benefits of his tax cuts, and a millionaire, for example, would get an average tax cut of $317,000,” Batcheleder says.

Trump economic adviser, Steve Calk argues the loss of the exemption is partially offset by other changes in Trump’s plan. Specifically, “the Trump proposal to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, will help taxpayers by boosting economic growth,” Calk says.

That’s not Making America Great Again, that’s enriching the already rich by leveraging the middle class, again.

Today is the first day of Donald Trump’s presidency. I believe all Americans should support him and wish him well, because he is our President.

But that doesn’t mean we should support his tax plan. And I don’t.

Americans desperately need a simplified and far fairer income tax regime.

That means taxing the rich more, taxing the uber-rich a lot more, and taxing those who are struggling a lot less, if anything at all.

Sincerely,

Shah

36 Responses to Why Trump’s Tax Plan is a Slap in the Face to the Middle Class

  1. SS says:

    I read and article explaining that Trumps corporate tax plan is all a bunch of smoke and mirrors as well. The average S&P 500 company pays a effective tax rate somewhere between 10-20% (rough numbers I don’t remember the exact number). With all the loop holes and deductions they pay no where near the 35%. So basically the premise was that lots of businesses will actually see tax increases.

    It all goes back to the fact that Trump misrepresents just about everything he talks about. He is as big a liar as the rest of the politicians. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the masses to catch on…

  2. Donald Faust says:

    I don’t understand why people in this country vote in republicans unless they are multi-millionaires. If they are not they are voting against themselves. Trump really got over on this one he has all billionaires on the cabinet. Everytime there is a republican president there is always a recession, not with democrats. God help this country!

  3. Dow Fosselman says:

    Thank you for bringing this to light. I will definitely put my two cents in with my writings to Washington. I am one of those that works two jobs and many hours a week to provide for my family with the ever shrinking dollar. So I need all the breaks I can get. No passive income to speak of for this guy unfortunately. Anyway, marginal tax rates should favor the middle class. We are the working backbone of this country.

  4. Jerry says:

    Shah,

    A word to the wise… Stay out of politics in your newsletters!

    Writing articles like the one above, almost certainly causes you to immediately lose 1/2 your followers, including me!

    Go TRUMP!

    • Carlton says:

      Talking about economic policies that effect all Americans is important, if not our civic duty. regardless of ones “political party, ” each policy should be viewed with a skeptical eye. I am grateful for Shah to open up this conversation, that is how a democracy works. On this issue, I agree with Shah, as do almost all economist, both in and out of the white house.

    • Moore Money says:

      Did you actually read what Shah wrote? It’s not political at all and for the record, I’m pretty sure Shah is a republican. What’s more is I’ve been a long time democrat but never have been offended by Shah writing in favor of republican policies.

      When is comes to making money the only party that matters is the party one throws themselves with the profits earned. Get a grip Jerry.

  5. Robert Odynski says:

    The more onerous you make taxes on the rich the more they will create ways to avoid paying all taxes. So you end up collecting less tax. This has been proven every time it’s been tried.

    If you reduce tax to a level where it’s not worth the trouble, cost, legal hazard, and reduced access to their money, rich people will just pay the tax so they can keep it and use it wherever and whenever they want.

  6. Michael Churchman says:

    I find your comments interesting though very much like the Democrats. The solution to tax problems does NOT lie in the wealth of the 1% ..or 10% but rather in the horrible spending habits of our government. I do not believe enough detail exists to properly evaluate Trump’s plan yet. True, when there is a tax cut, the wealthy will benefit first; it takes some time to trickle down to other levels.

    It is also true that the wealthy few will reap the majority of the benefits; after all. they also generate the bulk of the income. This tends to be a short term situation. Given a bit of time funds do flow downhill. Economic change can happen and in the right direction. As far as deductions, all of Trump’s proposals lack enough detail to properly judge.

    This is America and any attempt to truly change the tax code beyond a modest shuffle of bracket percentages will be very difficult to accomplish. Many have embarked on tax reform, none have succeeded. The system is too ingrained and each attempt only adds to the tens of thousands of pages of tax code. We need a total rewrite.

    We need to wait and see what finally becomes the plan before we judge the proposal.

  7. Geo says:

    High taxes are bad, no matter who pays them. It is foolish to believe that billionaire businessmen (including Mr. Gilani) are going to pay for tax increases out their own assets. In the end , we will all pay for the increases, and because most of the “we” is the middle class, all of this pseudo-intellectual hand wringing is just doubletalk. One real solution would be to decrease the size of Government by 20%, and insist that more people go to work. Trump has hinted at doing this. If you want to do something useful, stop fretting about how much money the rich have, which is none of your damn business, and start holding responsible both your Government and your fellow citizens on the Government dole.

    • Byron Mullen says:

      What you say about the size of government and it’s cost makes more sense than any tax cuts. We need term limits, cut out life time retirement income and benefits, and special medical plans. I don’t think the Founding Fathers had any of this malarkey in mind. The original legislators went home and worked when the Congress was not in session. Until we get the elected people in DC to think first about us, the American people, all of us, we will have to put up with all this nonsense. Demand that they represent the will of the people. So, cut the size and growth of all government and get them out of our lives except to do exactly what the Constitution requires.
      But we elected Mr. Trump so let’s give him a fair chance to see what he does for us. If he does not deliver, we need to hold him accountable. Obviously, no second term.

  8. John says:

    I hear what you are saying, but I wonder if we did away with a lot of tax subsidies to balance out the fairness would that be the answer? In other words, why do people who meet the income requirements and have children get a tax break while those who do not have children do not get that same tax treatment? Meaning, the filer with no children pays more than the filer with children. why? The same for the home subsidy; one can deduct mortgage interest while the renter can not. Why are we subsidizing mortgage holders anyway? Just a few thoughts..

    • Chris says:

      School tax is another issue. It’s attached to home ownership regardless of whether you have children or there are children within the home or not.

  9. Mike M says:

    As a middle class citizen, thank you for explaining it so concisely. I can’t wait to hear the spin that this administration is going to put on it. And this is change???

  10. Randolph says:

    You have established an excellent point.I personally believe any form of graduation tax and tax write offs is pure lunacy and discriminatory. One can imagine in their own right what I mean by this. Write offs too are a scam. If a purchase to benefit one’s need is justified, it should not be subsidized. Again it’s discriminatory. Sure, the process works to employ many but it’s all a ruse. Did not people do well before this nonsense. The key to the success of anything is the application of fundamental laws; not favoritism. One should ask themselves why sales taxes and property taxes in general are not graduated.

    In speaking about taxes, everyone should familiarize themselves with the website Cafr1.com to learn about the fleecing of the American worker and the method used to do so. We have literally been robbed on a commutative basis to the tune of trillions of dollars. Add the Finance, Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industries to the take. It gets very interesting does it not? This in great part fully explains why the middle class on average is gaining nothing. Again, visit http://www.cafr1.com and feast yourselves on some of Walter Burien’s diligent work in an exhaustive mission to educate the public. I know he is more than willing to confer and collaborate with anybody interested.

  11. Kevin says:

    When you START off from the wrong perspective, you will never find a right solution. It is NOT about how much to CONFISCATE and from whom. Maybe we should start with confiscating from you?

    HERE are the 2 issues:
    1) what principles determine what the government should do by means of confiscation and spending, then
    2) how to fairly and justly apportion the related costs to those who benefit and to those who support and want that spending.

    Gvt is only ethically, constitutionally, empowered to commit private resources for items that meet Constitutional obligations. It is easy enough to determine who benefits from them and to assign a proportion of the cost to that benefit. IN ADDITION, those who support and call for a particular ‘spend’ should be charged proportionately more to support their constitutional and religious beliefs.

    Any business is established under that principle, those who want and those who benefit determine what and how much is spent. If there is not enough financial support, then the project is not worthwhile, by definition of all the population.

    STOP TRYING TO PLAY GAMES AND JERK AMERICANS AROUND!!

    Our government has NO RIGHT to do anything other than this. Anyone who believes otherwise is free to put THEIR money where their BIG MOUTH is… Put up or shut up.

    I don’t CARE what any of you think. If you believe it, if you feel it, if your sense or morals and principles prompts it, then YOU, and others like you, VOLUNTARILY contribute towards that goal.

  12. Janet Norcott says:

    I have looked at the tax code. Yes lowering Corporate taxes will lower costs but will that extra revenue be used to enhanse those at the top. .
    There are no deductions for the employed, except dependents, state taxes ( which are taxes).
    property taxes. Even Medical and charity deductions are a fraud.
    In business there are so many. What about needing a car to get to work, no deduction for the emplyee, what about gas milage, etc. For the employer yes, employee ,no.
    You are so right.
    The only fair tax would be the National Sales tax with limits. that will never happen.The IRS has guns.
    How about no tax on salaries earned by a worker working for another boss or owner ( not if he is also the owner.) and there can be an income scale as to what the salaried owner pays.
    I know the very smart would get around that as well.
    How about a flat 5% for salaries and 15% for businesses.
    I just want a mathematitians view point.. .

  13. Allen says:

    Shah, you are right on the money! This country had much higher tax levels at the upper income brackets in the past, and it didn’t undermine investment and growth. Thank you for having the courage to speak out like this. Those who have replied before me seem to actually believe the self-serving and ideological blather they’ve spouted, notwithstanding the abundant evidence to the contrary, but then again, I’ll bet they are also climate change deniers. That’s what we’re up against.

  14. John Harwood says:

    Mr. Gilani,

    Thank you for having the courage to speak up for the middle class. Having volunteered for several years helping low income families file their taxes without a fee (VITA program), I observed first hand how almost all of these struggling families felt the government was “not helping them” and was to blame for their problems. As it turns out, enough people in this country had a similar perspective to give Donald Trump the White House.

    I didn’t vote for Mr. Trump but he is in a unique position (spending mostly his own money) to make important changes to help those of us that are hurting financially. How he goes about that – tax reform, international trade agreements, job creation etc.- and how effective it all will be is the billion dollar question.

    Having surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet, some with limited experience in the agencies they will oversee, I’m not optimistic. However, the country has elected a president promising “change” and we should wait and see how effective his changes will be in helping the middle class.

    Moving from corporate America to helping small companies with their retirement plans, I’ve seen first hand how few families save enough for their retirement and most have limited financial resources to handle even routine emergencies. Believe the stat is 60% of US households don’t even have access to $3K for such risks. These folks are one emergency away from bankruptcy.

    Our middle class, which includes me, has been in decline financially for over twenty years. The US economy is a marvel to behold when it functions properly creating millions of good paying jobs annually. Revolutions – the American revolution, the industrial revolution, the ongoing tech revolution – all represent incredible change that takes a toll on those least prepared.

    Seismic changes like these are never smooth and have significant costs that must be shared by everyone. As someone said, “I don’t expect the government to solve my problems, but I expect it to show me they at least understand them”. Understanding how these seismic changes effect ordinary people is a critical first step in determining how to share these costs and help save the middle class.

    Someone also said “the middle class is the glue that holds this country together”. As you pointed out, Mr. Gilani, there is now a severe concentration of wealth in a few peoples hands. While the world has changed a great deal since the 1920’s, there are similarities – concentration of wealth and financial bubbles bursting.

    Today we have many sophisticated safeguards to prevent an economic collapse. We had to use many of them during the great recession of 2008 to save our financial institutions and key industries. What we need now are new ‘middle class survival’ strategies to make sure all those folks that are barely hanging on can survive and thrive.

    I’m wishing the new Trump administration good luck in successfully navigating all the seismic change facing us today. The costs of such changes will be high so it’s important we figure out a way to share it equally, The middle class is “the glue that holds are country (and our economy) together” so such a cost will be worth it.

  15. randy a says:

    It seems they have everyone dancing to the governments tune. You arent paying your fair share. A Marxist concept if ever there was one. How about every one demand we eliminate the IRS. The country existed for more than 100 years without it. In reality all we need is sales tax. Want to pay less tax – spend less money. People might actually save money and get out of debt. And while were at it why dont we demand we abolish the federal reserve . Those two organizations have been stealing your money and your freedom since they were created!

  16. Ken says:

    More people need to get hold of good tax guides and figure out for themselves what
    they can do to lower taxes. You can’t depend upon accountants to do it for you. This may not solve the whole problem, but I believe that most people can lower their taxes somewhat if they will search out those features that are used by the wealthy, but which they can derive some benefit. A couple of thousand dollars saved in this way can be used to increase security and decrease taxes more in the future. This requires some work, but it may be more worth the effort than you may think at first. I never did earn much money. but I have achieved some success with this strategy. It enabled me to retire at 50. I don’t have a lot of money now, but I am comfortable.
    There is a book entitles Five Acres and Independence which you should read. Even if you live in the city, you may be able to raise some of your food, which is always a great idea.

  17. Mk says:

    The actual taxes anyone or any business pays is so hard to know with all the tax deductions and loopholes. Not sure I trust Trump but he is the only one who ‘says’ he wants to keep jobs in the USA.

  18. Susan C. says:

    I agree with you, Shah, but as a middle class taxpayer with no children and relatively normal investments, my main desire is ACTUAL tax “simplification” – it should not take 85,000 pages of tax code to figure out my taxes – it should not even take the 104 pages of instruction in the instruction booklet for form 1040 and the 300 or so pages of the Your Federal Tax Booklet. Everything I earn and nearly everything that I can deduct or taxes I have already paid is reported to the Government by the person, company or broker at the same time it is reported to me. So why do I have to spend several hours a year figuring out how much I owe or how much of a refund I should get? I should get a bill or a credit notification from the Federal Government, along with a form allowing me to add or subtract things that are not reported or have been reported incorrectly, and changing the total accordingly. THAT would cut the budget for the IRS to nearly nothing; and frankly if the amount is not completely out of line, and I would not benefit by a lot from what the Government records show, I would probably not bother to fill out that form – just pay them or agree to their calculated refund.

  19. Roy F. "Fritz" Schoonover says:

    I find it interesting how people can get so caught up in some small aspect of a question that they can’t seem to see the full scope of it. Of even greater interest, I don’t remember the people Shah lists as having the greatest wealth being the ones doing the complaining that their taxes are too high – Warren Buffet in particular is on record for stating that the current tax code is biased in his favor.
    This post has drawn a wide range of responses, from questioners and reasoners all the over to shouters. For informational purposes, the Federal Office of Management and Budget recently announced that the average tax rate paid by corporations is just over 14%. I suspect that Trump’s tax plan would bring in a little less than that, but perhaps more revenue if there were greater economic activity in response to it.
    Some comments and queries have been made here regarding flat taxes (some, not here, have tried to label them “fair” taxes). They might have the advantage of being simpler than the other calculations, but overall they might properly be considered to be “unfair.” Particularly if they are applied to consumption rather than income since the well-off by definition may choose to devote a smaller proportion of their means to the necessities of life. Even if applied to income it would seem better to require a larger proportion of support from the well-to-do since it can be argued that they derive a larger benefit from the State.
    As to the various other comments and suggestions I feel that the more quiet the voice each writer has used the more consideration that writer merits. In the end, however, I think Shah’s comments have bested all of us.

  20. Lars Hancock says:

    when the economy improves dramatically, everybody wins. When this happens, will you write another article admitting you were wrong or just find another way to write another liberal hit piece on Trump?

  21. Don Sytsma says:

    I don’t understand how it is fair that just because someone makes less they should pay a larger percentage less. I guess my issue lies with the idea that (if you think about it) those who pay little or no taxes are the biggest liabilities to the government (which really is US!!!) Those poor require government assistance for food, healthcare, many times housing. I know this sounds cold but it is a perspective I never hear anyone talk about. SO the middle class gets little or no “tax relief”. How much do they “deserve”? We (yes I am middle class) keep getting tax cut after tax cut, and if not cuts then tax credits or deductions, etc. The government requires revenues to function. I totally agree that spending is out of control. My problem is the biggest liabilities is entitlement programs and assistance programs!!!
    I mean if we go to war should we protect the rich first and then the neighborhoods that pay the next “most amount” of taxes and so on and not bother protecting those who pay none??? If you say no – then why? I don’t believe anyone should live here for absolute free!! ALL are given the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All are given a free (thru high school) education also – many of who squander and waste it!!! So then when they cant get a “high paying” job they want to hate the more successful!!!
    personally I believe a flat tax without deductions/tax credits or a national sales tax is the only truly fair tax system.
    If you feel bad for those less fortunate – then use your own money and take a personal interest and help them!!! I am so tired of hearing how many think they CARE because they vote for DEMOCRATS!!!! That just makes you lazy and disingenuous.
    pardon the scattered thoughts but reading the article and some of the responses set me off!!

    • Chance Freeman says:

      I do agree with a flat tax, but there would have to be exceptions for the poorest. Why? Because if a family makes the equivalent of the cost of living in an area, they can’t afford to lose 10% to a flat sales tax. You think the poor shouldn’t be helped at all? I think you forget, the ones that have more get there by standing on the backs of others. That’s fine, because they won the fight to get there. However, there’s always going to be a trash collector, table waiter, nurses assistant, etc. There will always be a bottom class in a capitalist economy, but it doesn’t mean they have to suffer. Sorry, but when a child is being selfish, the teacher has to step in to make them share.

  22. David George says:

    I support you, Shah. Please continue to tell it like it is. I’m a single taxpayer, a retiree, and make enough to more than get by but middle class, not close to being in the 1% class. If I have to pay a little more in order to help stimulate business and the economy or build the military, I’m okay with it. However, if entitlements continue to creep up then it’s not okay. If some working people pay no taxes it’s not okay. My taxes have only increased under Obama so what’s new? I hope the answer to that question is: fewer entitlements and entitlement increases. Period.

  23. Brian Kiernan says:

    I have a real problem with the obviously ideological reasoning behind this article. After saying “Cutting business taxes to promote business formation, increasing net profitability so companies can reinvest in their expansion, hire more workers and pay them more, makes good economic sense”, namely that cuts in business taxes are good; Shah turns right around and states “cutting business taxes almost immediately enriches business owners, corporate equity stakeholders, and shareholder “renters” who have the capital to play the markets long before the hoped for trickle-down effects of business tax cuts reach average wage-earning Americans.” In other words, cutting business taxes is bad because there is an arguably “immediate” payback to the risk-taking business owners, and shareholders and the payoff to normal worker bees takes longer. So we shouldn’t create the long term benefit for everyone, simply because of an assumed quicker benefit to the “bad” business owners?! That is like saying we shouldn’t build a dam because we first need to dig a hole. That kind of dubious “reasoning” means you will NEVER solve the longer term issue and makes the entire article virtually worthless.

  24. Coop says:

    It is interesting to read the variety of responses here, and to note that only a few actually address the real subject or touch on the issues. Perhaps that is what makes it so difficult to ever arrive at a solution to the problem, or even to identify the problem(s). Let me give it a shot.
    Problem 1 – unfettered government spending, much of which comes from a public unwilling to face up to their own issues, who then call on the government to “do something about this”.
    Problem 2 – incomprehensible rules and regulations, which are rarely simplified and deleted and instead, more are just added on.
    Problem 3 – Most of the so-called tax loopholes are intentional, and were put in to favor certain constituencies in return for contributions or votes or both, often under the guise of “stimulation”.
    Problem 4 – The main reason the first three problems exist is because they help to maintain bureaucratic jobs and control, and any attempt to change that is met with such self-righteous opposition that it’s simply easier and less stressful to just let it continue.
    Solution 1 – Eliminate ALL deductions EXCEPT for true charitable deductions. That means giving to a charity which actually helps people who need help, not all these NGO’s or “non-profits” which make up causes simply for the purpose of raising money to support their lifestyle.
    Solution 2 – Try to get a realistic estimate of the GNI and GDP and then calculate what % it will take to fund the government liabilities and spending for the year. That then becomes your tax %, and also equates to a balanced budget. With no deductions, and hence, no loopholes, it’s easy to figure. Whether it becomes a true flat tax, or an incremental flat tax where those over a certain income pay a higher % and those below pay a lower %, should be easy to work out. Obviously, if the incremental tax is adopted, then that will serve as a greater incentive for those above the level to donate more to charity. And, if true charitable deductions increase, the government can then get out of the welfare business, reducing spending accordingly, and likely improving efficiency..
    Solution 3 – With no “loopholes” available, the leverage of wealthy individuals and big corporations drops, and our politicians will have to become more responsive to the voters.
    Solution 4 – With a simple tax code, the job of the IRS is reduced to a fraction of what it does today, meaning it can be dramatically reduced in scale, saving taxpayers millions of $ each year. In addition, corporations will no longer have use for their armies of accountants and tax attorneys, so they too can cut costs, increase profits, and be more responsive to their customers.

    Seems like a win-win – now, let’s see who has the guts to do it.

  25. Jeff Lee says:

    Wow the Trumptard trolls are everywhere! How much longer do we keep repeating trickle-down economics and thinking it will work this time! Right on Shah.

  26. Jack Tippens says:

    “Trickle Down” economics has not succeeded in my 76 year lifetime and I do not expect it to suddenly succeed for “The Donald.”

  27. J.Takacs says:

    4/27/17
    In my own analysis this date,compared to 2016’s 1040, this “tax reform” would ADD $3,850 net to my tax bill, on a single’s mid 70k income.The devil is in the details;urge you to proforma “model” your return based on trump’s proposal(and I voted FOR the guy!).
    Specifically, I had a bad year healthwise,running up 20k in medical bills.Though I have an HSA, I opted out -of -pocket, to help get some relief via Schedule A line 1 deduction above 10% AGI threshold.I’m 58, and expect continued medical bills like this,beyond “help” of my employer’s shitty HDHP.Elimination on personal exemption,medical expense,property tax deduction,state/local taxes,HSA contribution deduction,casualty losses deduction,union dues,etc.,etc….I GUARANTEE YOU’LL PAY MORE TAX if you middle class indentured servant like the vast majority of people.I forsee the end of the middle class if this happens.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


9 − two =