Donald Trump's Proposal to Pay Off the National Debt

[On the Road]

Does anyone remember this from his flirtation with the Reform Party in the 2000 election?

The Donald wanted to sweep away the national debt in one fell swoop by a one-time tax of 14% on all individual assets of over $10 million.

If he had run, I might even have voted for him based on this part of the platform alone. He was also for national health care.

[AllegroRondo]

1. He was for national health care because its good for business

it means the government picks up the health care bill and not businesses.

[IronLionZion]

3. everyone who pays income taxes would pick up the bill

It's cheaper because they don't have all that administrative overhead and paperwork for employee health plans. It IS good for business, and for everyone except the insurance industry.

Several huge corporations like GM have endorsed it too.

[underpants]

7. We already pick up the bill for the uninsured

911 IS the health plan for the uninsured

[AllegroRondo]

9. Employer paid health coverage keeps wages down too

people cannot survive long without health care, so they will take jobs at lower wages just to keep the health care. its all about cheap labor for republicans.

[rniel]

8. re

"it means the government picks up the health care bill and not businesses."

Then why can't we get national health care if it's good for business.

[AllegroRondo]

11. Because employer paid health care keeps wages down

right where they want us - unable to leave a job because we cant live without the health care

[KlatooBNikto]

2. Has he paid off his own billions in debt?

[On the Road]

6. Nope, Leverage is How He Got Rich

In the late 80s, Spy Magazine, which was absolutely obsessed with Trump, had an investigative piece showing that Trump was not nearly as rich as he claimed to be. He drew up contracts with big upfront cash amounts for himself, which he used to live above his means. He would hire contractors and refuse to pay more than 80-90%. Most creditors walked away rather than going to court.

And people forget that he had to file for bankruptcy in the 90s.

So he's certainly not a model for fiscal responsibility. But I liked the proposal.

[BeeBee]

14. My thoughts exactly...

Didn't his casinos just file for bankruptcy?

[IronLionZion]

4. It would be spiffy to see him run on the Independence party ticket

but they would probably take more votes from the Dems. I like they give a lot of freedom in the positions of their candidates unlike the Dems and Republicans.

[On the Road]

5. I Wouldn't Support His Candidacy Personally

simply on the grounds that it was third party.

Plus there's an awful lot of negative stuff on Trump. But once in a while, someone will surprise you.

If a problem gets too bad, it sometimes requires a bold stroke. Trying to restore balanced-budget laws or the line-item vero is not going to be sufficient.

[ThorsHammer]

10. Interesting idea; I'd also add the inheritance tax

The inheritance tax has always struck me as unfair. People who have done absolutely nothing to earn the money get disproportionate benefit at a low tax rate. I favor lower income taxes (up to a certain amount at least), as at least these people are earning their money. Raising the inheritance tax could also do a lot for the debt without having to cut social programs. There could be a reasonable amount that is passed on under no/low tax, with the rest subject to a much higher rate.

[On the Road]

12. The Republicans Argue

that inheritance taxes retax money that's already been taxed once, when it was earned. And if I get rich and want to pass the money on to my children when I die, I should be able to do that. If the beneficiaries get taxed on the inheritance, that should theoretically be enough.

Having said that, I like your proposal of being able to pass on a reasonable amount to your children with little or taxes (say several million dollars), but very high rates beyond that. It would encourage people to become prosperous enough to care of themselves, their spouses, and their children without becoming billionaires. That's not a bad goal to shoot for.

[ThorsHammer]

15. Interesting point

I didn't think about the "retax" idea, but still don't have much sympathy for the heirs/heiresses. The man/woman who paid the tax was the one who earned the money, but his/her kids have not earned anything. We're going to have to raise revenue somehow, and I'd much rather take it from those who haven't earned it (inheritance) than from those who do earn it (income). The heirs/heiresses will still get more than they deserve through the tax free/low tax exemption. I can't think of many normal people who would opposes something like this, but unfortunately it would never become law.

[On the Road]

21. I Think That Democrats Have to be Careful

about any tax that sounds like a program to confiscate wealth just because people have gotten rich. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be taxes or that they shouldn't be progressive. Just that anti-tax fervor is easy to ignite.

[ThorsHammer]

26. True, that would have to be explained

If it is explained well, it comes across as a perfectly fair policy. People who make the money (income) pay less, people who don't earn it (inheritance) pay more. Putting it in these terms, along with a reasonable exemption, should appeal to most people. Unfortunately, this might be something else where people vote against their best interests.

[yankeedem]

18. Only problem with their theory

is that we don't tax money, we tax transactions. I paid for my gasoline with after tax income, which was taxed once, so I shouldn't pay gas/sales/excise taxes? This is where there theory falls apart.

Of course, with all the tax dodges that the wealthy use, there is a good chance that it hasn't been taxed once.

[ThorsHammer]

20. Exactly

That's what I was getting at (tax was paid on the transfer from someone to the parent, but not paid on the transfer from the parent to the child). Gifts of a certain amount are subject to taxes (disclaimer on all the game shows), and inheritance should be the same. You also bring up a good point with the tax dodges.

[On the Road]

28. One Way Around That

is to treat inheritance money as income. When you win money on Wheel of Fortune or the state lottery, or if Oprah gives you a car, it's treated as income. Why not when you inherit a hundred thousand dollars?

The rules wouldn't have to be exactly the same as for other income, but people are already used to the idea, so it's a more palatable way of collecting the tax. Republicans got a lot of mileage out of repealing the "death tax," even though most of it was bullshit. It would be more difficult to score those points if all you're doing is taxing income.

Taxing inheritances as income also takes more from beneficiaries who receive large amounts of money, and is therefore more progressive.

Just a thought. I haven't really studied the issue. I'm concerned about letting the superrich continue to get richer, but also about declaring war on anyone whose somewhat prosperous. It's partly a matter of where you draw the line and how it's communicated. That's exactly what the Democrats need to get better at.

[AP]

19. I think inheritance should be taxed progressively according to the income

of the recipient -- maybe not and the same rates and brackets as earned income, but definitely at different rates for different bands (like maybe 0% on $0-50k, 1% 50k-65k, 2% 65k-100k, 10% on 100k-300k, 30% on 300k-1 mil, 35% on 1mil-10mil, and 70% on 10mil-1000mil, etc.) and perhaps have those rates triggered by the recipients Adjusted Gross Income including the money they inherit.

That way, people with huge amounts of wealth would be encouraged to break that wealth and give it away to as many people as possible and give it to people who are poor. For example, if you died with 5 million bucks, your estate wouldn't be taxed at all if you gave 200 25K gifts to friends and relatives who only made 25K a year. (And, obviously if you gave to groups which paid no income tax because they were charities, they wouldn't pay tax regardless of how big the bequest was).

[ThorsHammer]

22. Another good idea

One could leave enough money to provide a reasonable life for their beneficiaries, without giving them enough to corrupt them. I like your angle about breaking the wealth up and giving it to the poor. Including inheritance as part of an AGI tax would work very well, as those who really need it would not pay tax, while those who don't truly need it would not be able to skirt the tax law.

[AP]

23. The behavior you want to encourage is for people to leave money to...

...people who need it the most, and the people who need it the most are people who have the least.

So, by doing it this way, you create a tax incentive for gifts to people who don't have much money (from all sources -- earned, unearned and inheritance).

[On the Road]

29. Tax Policy is Really Difficult

and I'm not an expert in any sense. I tend to look at goals, incentives, and actual effects. As well as the politics.

I like the goal of having a lot of prosperous people (MD-level), but few super-rich ones. Therefore, I'm more concerned with the very high end as well as the low end.

Kerry's idea of repealing the tax cuts only over $200,000 was an example of this. I think it was in the right direction. But in addition, there should be at least one higher bracket for those earning over a million.

[AP]

30. It sounds like you're more interested in outcomes when you should...

...concentrate on process.

The goal of tax policy isn't to make sure there aren't too many super rich people. It should be to encourage behaviour that creates wealth in a productive way. It just so happens that the consequence of that sort of thing is deconcentrated wealth.

For example, in my opinion, the most productive society is one that rewards work and not wealth, so you don't want to tax income from work as high as you tax wealth that isn't the product of work (like inheritance).

I think when you do that, the consequence is that a lot of wealth flows down from the top out to a lot of people who work for a living. However, people who work really hard and create a lot of wealth would still be able to get very rich. So the goal isn't to punish all wealthy people. The goal is to make sure that if you get really rich, it's because you did things that were very socially valuable (like work, rather than sit arround the pool collecting checks from dead relatives' estates and from dividend payments on your stocks).

[On the Road]

24. I Agree with the Sliding Scale

except that I would raise the amounts. It takes at least a million dollars to retire comfortably nowdays, and a parent should be able to provide for his kids' retirement or pass on the family business.

The Republicans attempted to eliminate the inheritance tax because of its effect on family farms and businesses. It was a dishonest argument, because the threshold is so high that only the very largest ones are affected. But the goal they were claiming was a good one.

When Sam Walton dies, that's a different matter.

I also like the goal of distributing an estate to as many people as possible. Economically, it would be beneficial and help to level the playing field. Maybe inheritance should be taxed on the recipient's side -- reported on the 1040 form and taxed as income or capital gains.

[AP]

25. The rates were for discussion, but nonetheless, it would tax a 1 mil gift

at less than 30%. You'd pay more in taxes if you earned that 1 million.

Kids who were left gifts of 1 million would still end up with at least 700,000 bucks. They would only had to have saved 300K through their own efforts to retire with a millon dollars.

I think those rates are more than fair.

(And if you wanted the income to be taxed at a lower rate, break it into multiple gifts: 400k for your child, 400k for the spouse, and 200k to all their children, and if your child is a high income earner, than leave the money to their minor children who have no other income, and let your grandchildren take care of their parents when they retire.)

[ThorsHammer]

27. Remember that it's a marginal tax rate

AP, I agree on your post 23, but didn't want to add clutter with another post.

Ribofunk, I'm for reasonable exemptions like you mentioned, but think the threshhold now is too high. $1.5-$2M or so should be more than enough for this. It's also a marginal tax rate, so the progressive rates only apply to the income above that level, not on the whole amount. A Walton or Hilton could still pass on as much as they want, but the incremental tax amount (with my idea) wouldn't benefit their kids much, and would hopefully motivate them to give some to others instead. The Republicans have distorted this with the "death tax", "save family farms" BS. I'd like to see it reframed as a matter of fairness. Like you said, distributing estates to a broad number of people helps those who really need it, and thus helps level the playing field.

[blurp]

13. Perfect for funding all military spending. Logical, IMHO.

Many argue that a strong military is necessary for defense.

Well, those with the most to defend should pay the most for that defense.

That's about as fair a tax as you can imagine.

[AP]

16. I think America is definitely going to need a one-time wealth tax for...

...two reasons:

(1) Because it will be the only way to undo the damage done by the last century of smashing and grabbing by the rich and by Republicans (which has really accelarated in the last 30 years and has hit warp speed in the last four). We tax wealth only when it changes hands, and the tax code has done alot to ensure that people can get wealthy without having to pass money through an avenue that is taxed, and a lot to ensure that once you have a lot of money, you won't have to worry about losing it. We've created a world that just doesn't encourage enough money changes hands in a way that is reasonably taxed so that we can keep providing a society that works efficiently. A one-time wealth tax is going to be one of the only tools that can fix that problem.

(2) Just like the only way to stop people like Pinochet and Hitler is to hold them accountable in war crimes tribunals after the fact, the only way to dissuade people from smashing and grabbing in the first place will be to show them that we as a government have the courage to pass a wealth tax every once in a while to undo the historical damage done by massive transfers of wealth.

Smashing and grabbing is such and attractive strategy for the super rich because we don't have a wealth tax. They're pretty confident that once they take all the money, there's no way they'll ever have to give it up. We need to discourage that.

[On the Road]

17. An Asset Tax is One of the Few Ways to Level Within a Capitalistic System

and despite the problems of a neoliberal economy, I think the US is better off not becoming socialist.

The division of wealth and income in the mid-20th century was not that bad. What's need is a return to more sensible policies like progressive taxation and balanced budgets. And maintaining a war economy only when we're at war.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

31. 2000 - that was before bush* got behind the wheel

i also recall we had a surplus.

[Deja Q]

32. He's the guy who goes into one bankruptcy after another, yes?

As if he doesn't want to bother to try paying off the debt?

Even I am trying to pay mine off.

Fuck that hypocrite and his (unrealistic) reality show.

[amazona]

33. the donald doesn't even pay his own debts

He just did another well-publicized bankruptcy. He may talk the talk but I'm not impressed that he would walk the walk. I think he's a self-aggrandizing <never mind> so I would need to see evidence that he ever did anything for anyone other than himself.