Donald Trump
Comments
-
Some people have just spent 203 pages debating the politics of a country we don't live in. Now that's boring...Veronese68 wrote:Is anything more boring than the tax regime of a country we don’t live in?
The interesting parts as far as most of this forum are concerned are wether he is lining the pockets of people like him and if it is a way of getting moving anti abortion legislation closer via a back door. The nitty gritty of tax makes drying paint look interesting.
I say debate in the loosest sense of the word sd nobody is really disagreeing on here that I can see."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Pass through entities aren't taxed in their own right so you'll need to clarify there.rjsterry wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
There is a reasonable degree of similarity on principles - a lot of difference are on points such as rates and other details. However regardless of what is eventually decided on, there is enough commonality to look at the possible consequences.rjsterry wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Not sure that people can really critique the Trump tax bill if they are ignorant of its main contents and possible impactsPinno wrote:bendertherobot wrote:Why? So we can do a Steve tax thread? I don't think so
Lawyer 1 - Tax bloke 0.
(and the final whistle has gone). That's two who have bottled it so far. Maybe you want to try? 
Which one? As I posted, there are two quite different plans from the Senate and the House.
There's a limit to how much time I want to spend reading about another country's tax legislation, but for one point, if dropping the CT rate is an attempt to stop people trying to avoid it, why are there proposals to ease taxes on pass-through entities? For the party that is usually pretty paranoid about increasing the deficit, they don't sound entirely convinced that the changes will be revenue neutral.
OK, that's the first point. What about the second?
The revenue neutrality point is not in question over the short term. If you make a single cut in rate that drastic it was never going to be anything else. More interesting is the deemed repatriation of earning any and the 'border tax'."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Nope - you're bored (you even said it yourself), you're trying to swing this around to another tax debate.
Not trolling by any chance are you?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
No, it's something that merits a debate in the context in this thread.Pinno wrote:
Where did I say I was bored?
Anyhow, it's lunchtime shortly - I'm having roast chicken. Must be corn fed as it is looking distictly yellow "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I suspect that apart from lack of subject knowledge (which never deterred certain people in the Paradise papers threadrjsterry wrote:
I dunno, it's the fishermen who sit around for hours on end in the freezing cold.PBlakeney wrote:Silly little fishes. ), this is one area that doesn't allow the regulars on this thread to just churn out the insults. As I said above, it's a bit of a pointless thread without any meaningful debate so it would be good to have some on an area that isn't quite so one sided. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Pinno wrote:
It's not even about tax. It's about the vagaries of a system which allows you to sneak in legislation on one topic whilst ostensibly legislating for something completely different.
But he only knows about tax, so he trolls on that.0 -
Ah, the trolls are out in force todaynarbs wrote:Pinno wrote:
It's not even about tax. It's about the vagaries of a system which allows you to sneak in legislation on one topic whilst ostensibly legislating for something completely different.
But he only knows about tax, so he trolls on that.
If the article is correct then fur sure, they should not be piggybacking stuff through in hat way. However as I mentioned above, the main bill itself is a major development and warrants debate.
I guess you can't or won't talk about either for the reasons I gave above."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Pass through entities aren't taxed in their own right so you'll need to clarify there.rjsterry wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
There is a reasonable degree of similarity on principles - a lot of difference are on points such as rates and other details. However regardless of what is eventually decided on, there is enough commonality to look at the possible consequences.rjsterry wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Not sure that people can really critique the Trump tax bill if they are ignorant of its main contents and possible impactsPinno wrote:bendertherobot wrote:Why? So we can do a Steve tax thread? I don't think so
Lawyer 1 - Tax bloke 0.
(and the final whistle has gone). That's two who have bottled it so far. Maybe you want to try?
Which one? As I posted, there are two quite different plans from the Senate and the House.
There's a limit to how much time I want to spend reading about another country's tax legislation, but for one point, if dropping the CT rate is an attempt to stop people trying to avoid it, why are there proposals to ease taxes on pass-through entities? For the party that is usually pretty paranoid about increasing the deficit, they don't sound entirely convinced that the changes will be revenue neutral.
OK, that's the first point. What about the second?
The revenue neutrality point is not in question over the short term. If you make a single cut in rate that drastic it was never going to be anything else. More interesting is the deemed repatriation of earning any and the 'border tax'.
If I understand it correctly they are upping the amount of business income that can be deducted before the remainder is taxed at the personal rate (which may well also be reduced). Also, McConnell is already equivocating on whether middle earners will pay more to fill the gap. Originally he promised not, then said he mis-spoke.
BTW, happy to adjourn to the Panama thread if you prefer.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'll have another look at that bit as that wasn't in line with how I read it, though tbh it wasn't the most relevant bit for our Group so I didn't focus on it.
Not sure its the right subject for the Panama thread, the upset here is that it might to start a debate where previously there wasn't one."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I suspect that apart from lack of subject knowledge (which never deterred certain people in the Paradise papers threadrjsterry wrote:
I dunno, it's the fishermen who sit around for hours on end in the freezing cold.PBlakeney wrote:Silly little fishes. ), this is one area that doesn't allow the regulars on this thread to just churn out the insults. As I said above, it's a bit of a pointless thread without any meaningful debate so it would be good to have some on an area that isn't quite so one sided.
There isn't and hasn't been much debate in this thread - it's the Donald Trump watch thread.Joelsim wrote:Is this bloke 100% or just 99.99% muppet?
What a tool.
Discuss.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
So given that the tax reform bill is to a large extent his 'baby' and reflects on him, it is relevant and should be discussed on here.Pinno wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I suspect that apart from lack of subject knowledge (which never deterred certain people in the Paradise papers threadrjsterry wrote:
I dunno, it's the fishermen who sit around for hours on end in the freezing cold.PBlakeney wrote:Silly little fishes. ), this is one area that doesn't allow the regulars on this thread to just churn out the insults. As I said above, it's a bit of a pointless thread without any meaningful debate so it would be good to have some on an area that isn't quite so one sided.
There isn't and hasn't been much debate in this thread - it's the Donald Trump watch thread.Joelsim wrote:Is this bloke 100% or just 99.99% muppet?
What a tool.
Discuss."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
So given that the tax reform bill is to a large extent his 'baby' and reflects on him, it is relevant and should be discussed on here.Pinno wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I suspect that apart from lack of subject knowledge (which never deterred certain people in the Paradise papers threadrjsterry wrote:
I dunno, it's the fishermen who sit around for hours on end in the freezing cold.PBlakeney wrote:Silly little fishes. ), this is one area that doesn't allow the regulars on this thread to just churn out the insults. As I said above, it's a bit of a pointless thread without any meaningful debate so it would be good to have some on an area that isn't quite so one sided.
There isn't and hasn't been much debate in this thread - it's the Donald Trump watch thread.Joelsim wrote:Is this bloke 100% or just 99.99% muppet?
What a tool.
Discuss.
Why can't you just roll with it?
Anyway, Trump bashing should be right down your street:
From the FT:
“This has been what Washington is so good at — focusing process. But the substantive issues are still there. The big question is how are you going to pay for it,” said Mr Myrow, now a partner at Beacon Policy Advisors.
You're always banging on about how such and such is being paid for.
More form the FT:
"Industries including housebuilding, wind power and electric cars warned on Friday of job losses and damage to the economy from the Republican tax reform plan."
Here's the Bloomberg take on it:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... eform-plan
Time magazines take on it:
Corporations, the wealthy and some parents would be helped by the Republican tax reform plan unveiled Thursday, while real estate agents, residents of high-tax states and people with serious illnesses would be hurt.
From the Washington post:
"One of the most controversial aspects of President Trump's tax plan is how much it costs. Republicans approved adding up to $1.5 trillion to America's debt to pay for tax cuts for businesses and individuals, but they claimed that the price tag wouldn't be nearly that high because the plan would unleash a lot more economic growth.
Now Congress's official estimators have weighed in: The Senate GOP bill would add $1 trillion to the debt even after accounting for economic growth generated by the tax cuts. The estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan group of experts, was released Thursday afternoon as lawmakers hotly debated the tax bill on the Senate floor.
The Senate GOP tax plan would cause faster economic growth -- about 0.8 percent more over the next decade, JCT found. But that amount of growth only covers about a third of the cost, far short of what is needed to have revenue-neutral tax reform, as the White House initially claimed."seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Anyway, Back OT:
Perhaps these tax reforms are simply his way of lacing the track for his own personal business future when he ain't the president no more (and stuff the country).seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Ah, the trolls are out in force todaynarbs wrote:Pinno wrote:
It's not even about tax. It's about the vagaries of a system which allows you to sneak in legislation on one topic whilst ostensibly legislating for something completely different.
But he only knows about tax, so he trolls on that.
If the article is correct then fur sure, they should not be piggybacking stuff through in hat way. However as I mentioned above, the main bill itself is a major development and warrants debate.
I guess you can't or won't talk about either for the reasons I gave above.
Tax policies always have some element of social policy, but this seems a more blatant attempt to game the system. I'm half surprised there isn't a rehash of the Muslim ban tucked in there, too.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Rumours are Trump admin are preparing for and considering a preventative attack on North Korea....0
-
Is even bonespur mad enough to do that? :?
Is it appeasing NK to accept them as a nuclear power? To give them a seat at the table to stop something unimaginable happening? Would it stop at that?
On a separate not trumps attorney has taken blame for the tweet re ‘we had to sack him cos he lied to FBI’ when asked how many times he’d tweeted for trump he said ‘just the once’
All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Deflection.Rick Chasey wrote:Rumours are Trump admin are preparing for and considering a preventative attack on North Korea....
Nobody would do that. Would they? The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
Deflection.Rick Chasey wrote:Rumours are Trump admin are preparing for and considering a preventative attack on North Korea....
Nobody would do that. Would they?
Well if it ends up in war it’s pretty awful.0 -
Well quite, may overshadow the tax reform bill somewhat.Rick Chasey wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Deflection.Rick Chasey wrote:Rumours are Trump admin are preparing for and considering a preventative attack on North Korea....
Nobody would do that. Would they?
Well if it ends up in war it’s pretty awful."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
As I read it they are setting a minimum rate of 25% on business income earned by pass throughs (and taxed in the hands of the shareholders), but broadening the base by limiting deductions for interest, prior year tax losses etc. That said, 25% is higher than the new corporate rate for corporates (20%).rjsterry wrote:If I understand it correctly they are upping the amount of business income that can be deducted before the remainder is taxed at the personal rate (which may well also be reduced). Also, McConnell is already equivocating on whether middle earners will pay more to fill the gap. Originally he promised not, then said he mis-spoke.
BTW, happy to adjourn to the Panama thread if you prefer.
As I said though, not the biggest issue."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Roll with what?Pinno wrote:Why can't you just roll with it?
Anyway, Trump bashing should be right down your street:
From the FT:
“This has been what Washington is so good at — focusing process. But the substantive issues are still there. The big question is how are you going to pay for it,” said Mr Myrow, now a partner at Beacon Policy Advisors.
You're always banging on about how such and such is being paid for.
More form the FT:
"Industries including housebuilding, wind power and electric cars warned on Friday of job losses and damage to the economy from the Republican tax reform plan."
Here's the Bloomberg take on it:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... eform-plan
Time magazines take on it:
Corporations, the wealthy and some parents would be helped by the Republican tax reform plan unveiled Thursday, while real estate agents, residents of high-tax states and people with serious illnesses would be hurt.
From the Washington post:
"One of the most controversial aspects of President Trump's tax plan is how much it costs. Republicans approved adding up to $1.5 trillion to America's debt to pay for tax cuts for businesses and individuals, but they claimed that the price tag wouldn't be nearly that high because the plan would unleash a lot more economic growth.
Now Congress's official estimators have weighed in: The Senate GOP bill would add $1 trillion to the debt even after accounting for economic growth generated by the tax cuts. The estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan group of experts, was released Thursday afternoon as lawmakers hotly debated the tax bill on the Senate floor.
The Senate GOP tax plan would cause faster economic growth -- about 0.8 percent more over the next decade, JCT found. But that amount of growth only covers about a third of the cost, far short of what is needed to have revenue-neutral tax reform, as the White House initially claimed."
As I mentioned above the rate cut and impact on revenues/debt would be the obvious focus and is undoubtedly a big issue. In my view the mistake is cutting too far too fast as that really is a massive and immediate change.
The two that are pretty major but don't get the press are:
1. Deemed repatriation of overseas earnings as a transitional step to exemption of foreign dividend income. This goes to the heart of what some people were calling US tax avoidance over on the Paradise papers thread.
2. The 20% 'excise' tax for payments to foreign group companies - regardless off whether tax havens or not. This could make it economically unviable for groups to manufacture outside of the US and export to it vs US domestic production. Massively protectionist IMO."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
0
-
Stevo 666 wrote:
Roll with what?Pinno wrote:Why can't you just roll with it?
Anyway, Trump bashing should be right down your street:
From the FT:
“This has been what Washington is so good at — focusing process. But the substantive issues are still there. The big question is how are you going to pay for it,” said Mr Myrow, now a partner at Beacon Policy Advisors.
You're always banging on about how such and such is being paid for.
More form the FT:
"Industries including housebuilding, wind power and electric cars warned on Friday of job losses and damage to the economy from the Republican tax reform plan."
Here's the Bloomberg take on it:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... eform-plan
Time magazines take on it:
Corporations, the wealthy and some parents would be helped by the Republican tax reform plan unveiled Thursday, while real estate agents, residents of high-tax states and people with serious illnesses would be hurt.
From the Washington post:
"One of the most controversial aspects of President Trump's tax plan is how much it costs. Republicans approved adding up to $1.5 trillion to America's debt to pay for tax cuts for businesses and individuals, but they claimed that the price tag wouldn't be nearly that high because the plan would unleash a lot more economic growth.
Now Congress's official estimators have weighed in: The Senate GOP bill would add $1 trillion to the debt even after accounting for economic growth generated by the tax cuts. The estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan group of experts, was released Thursday afternoon as lawmakers hotly debated the tax bill on the Senate floor.
The Senate GOP tax plan would cause faster economic growth -- about 0.8 percent more over the next decade, JCT found. But that amount of growth only covers about a third of the cost, far short of what is needed to have revenue-neutral tax reform, as the White House initially claimed."
As I mentioned above the rate cut and impact on revenues/debt would be the obvious focus and is undoubtedly a big issue. In my view the mistake is cutting too far too fast as that really is a massive and immediate change.
The two that are pretty major but don't get the press are:
1. Deemed repatriation of overseas earnings as a transitional step to exemption of foreign dividend income. This goes to the heart of what some people were calling US tax avoidance over on the Paradise papers thread.
2. The 20% 'excise' tax for payments to foreign group companies - regardless off whether tax havens or not. This could make it economically unviable for groups to manufacture outside of the US and export to it vs US domestic production. Massively protectionist IMO.
Would that in itself provoke a reaction from say, the pacific Alliance?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
The second one could cause a reaction from any non-US country or organisation that has US interests but does not manufacture there (or even provide services there in some cases). It could also cause issues with the WTO depending on how it is structured.Pinno wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Roll with what?
As I mentioned above the rate cut and impact on revenues/debt would be the obvious focus and is undoubtedly a big issue. In my view the mistake is cutting too far too fast as that really is a massive and immediate change.
The two that are pretty major but don't get the press are:
1. Deemed repatriation of overseas earnings as a transitional step to exemption of foreign dividend income. This goes to the heart of what some people were calling US tax avoidance over on the Paradise papers thread.
2. The 20% 'excise' tax for payments to foreign group companies - regardless off whether tax havens or not. This could make it economically unviable for groups to manufacture outside of the US and export to it vs US domestic production. Massively protectionist IMO.
Would that in itself provoke a reaction from say, the pacific Alliance?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
The second one could cause a reaction from any non-US country or organisation that has US interests but does not manufacture there (or even provide services there in some cases). It could also cause issues with the WTO depending on how it is structured.Pinno wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Roll with what?
As I mentioned above the rate cut and impact on revenues/debt would be the obvious focus and is undoubtedly a big issue. In my view the mistake is cutting too far too fast as that really is a massive and immediate change.
The two that are pretty major but don't get the press are:
1. Deemed repatriation of overseas earnings as a transitional step to exemption of foreign dividend income. This goes to the heart of what some people were calling US tax avoidance over on the Paradise papers thread.
2. The 20% 'excise' tax for payments to foreign group companies - regardless off whether tax havens or not. This could make it economically unviable for groups to manufacture outside of the US and export to it vs US domestic production. Massively protectionist IMO.
Would that in itself provoke a reaction from say, the pacific Alliance?
So he is a tw@t then?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Donald openly criticises the FBI, by saying it's reputation is in tatters.
I wonder how long it will be before he's shot from the sixth floor of a book depository and Mike Pence takes over ?"The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby0 -
I don't think I'd pin my reasoning for thinking he's a tw@t on a misguided excise type tax, there are enough other reasons.Pinno wrote:So he is a tw@t then?
But as a tax policy it sucks from the free trade perspective and in terms of restricting freedom to put functions in the optimal location. Could be a big project for me on the work front..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
