Trump's tax plan
Jan. 6th, 2017 09:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
whocares1970There is an aspect of the President-elect's proposed tax plan that has not been publicized or discussed much by the media and that nevertheless has far-reaching social implications.
There are two parts here and both are profound cultural statements. Let me give you a video about one of the points first:
And these benefits will be quite big. The President-elect talks about deducting the average cost of child care from the family's taxable income if a parent or a grandparent stays at home with a child (or children). The number is $16,430 per child per year in Massachusetts, and a map with those values for each state can be seen here.
This is a big deal. No, this is huge. And not just in the economic sense, even though it will mean a noticeable financial relief for many families. The society will thus promote not only the marriage, as described below, but also the traditional family model, including the extended family, given the credit for grandparents staying at home with the kids. This is important as the very idea of marriage and family as not only fundamental but even as something valuable has been under attack for a while in our society.
It is also important that we are talking about an exclusion, not a refundable tax credit, and so it will benefit only the working families, those who already produce taxable income.
Here are some more details. According to the Trunp's tax plan:
<< Americans will be able to take an above-the-line deduction for children under age 13 that will be capped at state average for age of child, and for eldercare for a dependent. The exclusion will not be available to taxpayers with total income over $500,000 Married-Joint /$250,000 Single, and because of the cap on the size of the benefit, working and middle class families will see the largest percentage reduction in their taxable income.
The childcare exclusion would be provided to families who use stay-at-home parents or grandparents as well as those who use paid caregivers, and would be limited to 4 children per taxpayer. The eldercare exclusion would be capped at $5,000 per year. The cap would increase each year at the rate of inflation.
The Trump Plan would offer spending rebates for childcare expenses to certain low-income taxpayers through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The rebate would be equal to 7.65 percent of remaining eligible childcare expenses, subject to a cap of half of the payroll taxes paid by the taxpayer (based on the lower-earning parent in a two-earner household).
This rebate would be available to married joint filers earning $62,400 ($31,200 for single taxpayers) or less. Limitations on costs eligible for exclusion and the number of beneficiaries would be the same as for the basic exclusion. The ceiling would increase with inflation each year.
All taxpayers would be able to establish Dependent Care Savings Accounts (DCSAs) for the benefit of specific individuals, including unborn children. Total annual contributions to a DCSA are limited to $2,000 per year from all sources, which include the account owner (parent in the case of a minor or the person establishing elder care account), immediate family members of the account owner, and the employer of the account owner. When established for children, the funds remaining in the account when the child reaches 18 can be used for education expenses, but additional contributions could not be made.
To encourage lower-income families to establish DCSAs for their children, the government will provide a 50 percent match on parental contributions of up to $1,000 per year for these households. When parents fill out their taxes they can check a box to directly deposit any portion of their EITC into their Dependent Care Savings Account. All deposits and earnings thereon will be free from taxation, and unused balances can rollover from year to year.>>
Now for the second part. The current tax system disfavors and penalizes marriage. Here is a simplified description of a hypothetic case of two people, each earning $65K a year, having a baby. We'lll use official IRS data. Suppose these to people are married. Then their standard deduction is $12,600. In addition, they have 3 x $4,050 = $12,150 in personal exemptions. The nontaxable part of their income is thus $24,750. Their taxable income is 2 x $65,000 - $24,750 = $105,250. They will pay $17,855 in federal income taxes.
Let us imagine now that these people do not marry. One of them files as a single person. He/she would have a standard deduction of $6,300 and a personal exemption of $4,050. The taxable income will be $65,000-$10,350 = $54,650, and the tax is $9,433.75. The other will file as a head of household, with a standard deduction of $9,300 and personal exemptions of 2 x $4,050 = $8,100. The taxable income is then $65,000 - $17,400 = $47,600. The tax is $6,477.50. Their combined tax is $9,433.75 + $6,477.50 = $15,911.25. This is $17,855 - $15,911.25 = $1,943.75 of 10.9% less than if they are married. What this means is that the society is willing to pay almost $2,000 extra for the couple to not be married. The society economically encourages single parentship, and, once again, this is just one of the way the society states that the traditional family does not matter (or even is discouraged).
Let us now see what would happen with the same couple under the President-elect Trump's tax plan. Supposed they are married. There are no personal exemptios, but the standard deduction is $30,000. So, the taxable income is 2 x $65,000 - $30,000 = $100,000. The tax brakes are different, so the tax will be $15,250. This is $2,606 less than what they are paying now.
If they are not married, each of them will have a standard deduction of $15,000 and thus a taxable income of $50,000. So, each will pay $7,625, the total for them together is still $15,250. Thus, the "bonus" for not being married is eliminated. Their combined tax is still $911.25 less than what they are paying now.
Naturally, the tax code is only one of the ways that the government and the society pushes this agenda. First, people say that single parents should not be stigmatized. This is a sign of compassion, but very soon the discourse becomes that traditional families should receive no special support from the society at all, and before you know it, it is that being in the traditional family is in no way better than not. Perhaps it is sometimes viewed as being even worse, as enslaving a person and making him or her more dependent on the archaic social order. All this is a part of the "progressive" agenda that proclaims giving people mode independence. In reality, it destroys the family but makes people totally dependent on the government.
The above is an example of the regular "progressive" tactics - first, they declare compassion for thpse outside of the norm in some way. Then they deny the very existence of the norm, or even claim that it is a harmful thing.
Speaking of the decline of the traditional family, we now have more than 40% of all births to be out-of-wedlock:
And the rate is growing. This is a disaster.
I really hope that with the next president in office, the traditional mainstays of the society will make a huge comeback.
There are two parts here and both are profound cultural statements. Let me give you a video about one of the points first:
And these benefits will be quite big. The President-elect talks about deducting the average cost of child care from the family's taxable income if a parent or a grandparent stays at home with a child (or children). The number is $16,430 per child per year in Massachusetts, and a map with those values for each state can be seen here.
This is a big deal. No, this is huge. And not just in the economic sense, even though it will mean a noticeable financial relief for many families. The society will thus promote not only the marriage, as described below, but also the traditional family model, including the extended family, given the credit for grandparents staying at home with the kids. This is important as the very idea of marriage and family as not only fundamental but even as something valuable has been under attack for a while in our society.
It is also important that we are talking about an exclusion, not a refundable tax credit, and so it will benefit only the working families, those who already produce taxable income.
Here are some more details. According to the Trunp's tax plan:
<< Americans will be able to take an above-the-line deduction for children under age 13 that will be capped at state average for age of child, and for eldercare for a dependent. The exclusion will not be available to taxpayers with total income over $500,000 Married-Joint /$250,000 Single, and because of the cap on the size of the benefit, working and middle class families will see the largest percentage reduction in their taxable income.
The childcare exclusion would be provided to families who use stay-at-home parents or grandparents as well as those who use paid caregivers, and would be limited to 4 children per taxpayer. The eldercare exclusion would be capped at $5,000 per year. The cap would increase each year at the rate of inflation.
The Trump Plan would offer spending rebates for childcare expenses to certain low-income taxpayers through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The rebate would be equal to 7.65 percent of remaining eligible childcare expenses, subject to a cap of half of the payroll taxes paid by the taxpayer (based on the lower-earning parent in a two-earner household).
This rebate would be available to married joint filers earning $62,400 ($31,200 for single taxpayers) or less. Limitations on costs eligible for exclusion and the number of beneficiaries would be the same as for the basic exclusion. The ceiling would increase with inflation each year.
All taxpayers would be able to establish Dependent Care Savings Accounts (DCSAs) for the benefit of specific individuals, including unborn children. Total annual contributions to a DCSA are limited to $2,000 per year from all sources, which include the account owner (parent in the case of a minor or the person establishing elder care account), immediate family members of the account owner, and the employer of the account owner. When established for children, the funds remaining in the account when the child reaches 18 can be used for education expenses, but additional contributions could not be made.
To encourage lower-income families to establish DCSAs for their children, the government will provide a 50 percent match on parental contributions of up to $1,000 per year for these households. When parents fill out their taxes they can check a box to directly deposit any portion of their EITC into their Dependent Care Savings Account. All deposits and earnings thereon will be free from taxation, and unused balances can rollover from year to year.>>
Now for the second part. The current tax system disfavors and penalizes marriage. Here is a simplified description of a hypothetic case of two people, each earning $65K a year, having a baby. We'lll use official IRS data. Suppose these to people are married. Then their standard deduction is $12,600. In addition, they have 3 x $4,050 = $12,150 in personal exemptions. The nontaxable part of their income is thus $24,750. Their taxable income is 2 x $65,000 - $24,750 = $105,250. They will pay $17,855 in federal income taxes.
Let us imagine now that these people do not marry. One of them files as a single person. He/she would have a standard deduction of $6,300 and a personal exemption of $4,050. The taxable income will be $65,000-$10,350 = $54,650, and the tax is $9,433.75. The other will file as a head of household, with a standard deduction of $9,300 and personal exemptions of 2 x $4,050 = $8,100. The taxable income is then $65,000 - $17,400 = $47,600. The tax is $6,477.50. Their combined tax is $9,433.75 + $6,477.50 = $15,911.25. This is $17,855 - $15,911.25 = $1,943.75 of 10.9% less than if they are married. What this means is that the society is willing to pay almost $2,000 extra for the couple to not be married. The society economically encourages single parentship, and, once again, this is just one of the way the society states that the traditional family does not matter (or even is discouraged).
Let us now see what would happen with the same couple under the President-elect Trump's tax plan. Supposed they are married. There are no personal exemptios, but the standard deduction is $30,000. So, the taxable income is 2 x $65,000 - $30,000 = $100,000. The tax brakes are different, so the tax will be $15,250. This is $2,606 less than what they are paying now.
If they are not married, each of them will have a standard deduction of $15,000 and thus a taxable income of $50,000. So, each will pay $7,625, the total for them together is still $15,250. Thus, the "bonus" for not being married is eliminated. Their combined tax is still $911.25 less than what they are paying now.
Naturally, the tax code is only one of the ways that the government and the society pushes this agenda. First, people say that single parents should not be stigmatized. This is a sign of compassion, but very soon the discourse becomes that traditional families should receive no special support from the society at all, and before you know it, it is that being in the traditional family is in no way better than not. Perhaps it is sometimes viewed as being even worse, as enslaving a person and making him or her more dependent on the archaic social order. All this is a part of the "progressive" agenda that proclaims giving people mode independence. In reality, it destroys the family but makes people totally dependent on the government.
The above is an example of the regular "progressive" tactics - first, they declare compassion for thpse outside of the norm in some way. Then they deny the very existence of the norm, or even claim that it is a harmful thing.
Speaking of the decline of the traditional family, we now have more than 40% of all births to be out-of-wedlock:
And the rate is growing. This is a disaster.
I really hope that with the next president in office, the traditional mainstays of the society will make a huge comeback.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-06 03:46 pm (UTC)Можно я уточню. Вы считаете, что это дизастр, потому что налоги увеличатся на белых семейных, из-за того, что у черных много матерей-одиночек и низкие доходы?
no subject
Date: 2017-01-06 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-06 04:55 pm (UTC)And the rate is growing. This is a disaster.
Но я внимательно посмотрел график. Он вообще только до 2008-го года и понял что Ваш дизастр относится к прежним временам, и понял теперь последнюю фразу, что Трамп вернет это состояние к нормальному, как это было до того.
Вы как преподаватель должны знать, что людям надо давать какие-то опорные сигналы, что-то точно указывать, чтобы они не тонули в информации.
Сделайте краткое summary всего того, что Вы хотели показать. Все, что Вы поставили вряд ли кто-то прочтет.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-06 07:03 pm (UTC)Трaмп всё не вернёт в нoрму, нo, пo крaйней мере, ухудшение мoжет зaмедлиться или oстaнoвиться.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-06 05:13 pm (UTC)вроде бы получается, что налоги с публики уменьшатся. а government расходы? тишина.
и сначала подчёркнуто: "we are talking about an exclusion, not a refundable tax credit", а потом "The Trump Plan would offer spending rebates for childcare expenses to certain low-income taxpayers through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The rebate would be equal to 7.65 percent of remaining eligible childcare expenses, subject to a cap of half of the payroll taxes paid by the taxpayer (based on the lower-earning parent in a two-earner household)".
Т.е. всё-таки возвраты для low-income категории. Ну и чем это не welfare? RITNO он и есть RINO.
кроме того, сколько было шуму когда Обама снизил "зажиточный" порог до $250К на брата - и опять эта же циферка фигурирует как порог, т.е. ничего не меняется (кроме общей инфляции, но на taxes бедных "богатых" это не отражается.
и вот ещё интересный момент. работающей семье (как я понимаю, из папы-мамы-детей) скостят их налогооблагаемый доход на $16,430, если за ребёнком ухаживает бабушка...а ей-то какой прок? Не платят же родители собственным родителям как сторонним babysitters? Т.е. дед-пенсионер сидит с внуками, а поблажку получают его дети?
no subject
Date: 2017-01-06 07:10 pm (UTC)(2) >> и вот ещё интересный момент. работающей семье (как я понимаю, из папы-мамы-детей) скостят их налогооблагаемый доход на $16,430, если за ребёнком ухаживает бабушка...а ей-то какой прок? Не платят же родители собственным родителям как сторонним babysitters? Т.е. дед-пенсионер сидит с внуками, а поблажку получают его дети? <<
Ну тaк я же и гoвoрю, этo будет пooщрять людей рaссмaтривaть семью кaк единую unit. Нo, рaзумеется, никтo дедушек-бaбушек зaстaвлять сидеть с детьми не будет.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-06 07:46 pm (UTC)вы так уверены? не логичней ли было бы давать льготу тому кто действительно занимается ребёнком? если родитель, то ему-ей, если дед/бабушка, то им?
no subject
Date: 2017-01-06 08:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-06 08:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-06 08:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-06 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-06 09:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-01-06 09:47 pm (UTC)рекламируемая льгота будет поощрять дедушек-бабушек жить с семьёй их сына/дочери и вести общее хозяйство; только тогда они получат часть налоговой плюшки за своё бебиситтерство.
т.е. "поворот к традиционной семье" распространяется на 3 поколения, а не только поощряет браки пар с детьми.