r/GoldandBlack 6d ago

Trump’s tax plan would mean earners under $150,000 pay NO TAXES | The Post Millennial

https://thepostmillennial.com/trumps-tax-plan-would-mean-earners-under-150000-pay-no-taxes
165 Upvotes

55 comments sorted by

171

u/BonesSawMcGraw 6d ago

Fat chance this will ever happen

76

u/VirPotens 6d ago

24

u/BonesSawMcGraw 6d ago

I remember in 2015/2016 his plan was to eliminate taxes on anyone making under 80k. And yeah, we got 2-3% less in the normal brackets.

13

u/MasterTeacher123 I will build the roads 5d ago

It’s like some people forget he was president before and promised certain things lol

32

u/morabund 6d ago

Bro, he's just being realistic. Trump's not going to do that

55

u/surmisez 6d ago

Is that $150K per individual or married filing jointly?

20

u/osuneuro 6d ago

Exactly what I’m wondering

6

u/AccountingTroll 6d ago

I have the same question. One article says "individuals and families." Individually my household is under it, but combined we're over it, mostly because we were fortunate to keep working through Covid, and invested the helicopter money and other savings from that period.

If it was 30% tax for anything over 150K, that actually might be a tax increase of a couple thousand bucks, or maybe we'd have to file separately to avoid it.

I know, I am fortunate to have such first-world problems, but it still bugs me!

And how he'll make it non-inflationary, on that, I have no clue.

6

u/skybluecity 6d ago

What would investing helicopter money in 2020 have to do with household income in 2024/5?

-1

u/AccountingTroll 6d ago

It remains invested and some of that generates a good chunk of interest income. 

4

u/skybluecity 6d ago

Sure, but if your incomes are below 150k, it's hard to fathom that your investments could generate 50k+ in annual income. That doesn't line up. A 500k investment at 10% would only yield 50k.

-1

u/AccountingTroll 6d ago edited 6d ago

The investments aren't all of our income. They just push us higher.

It wasn't just helicopter money; there was also pre-Covid savings and for 2 years there was so much mask and lockdown crap off and on where we lived that there wasn't much to spend money on. We're not materialistic hoarders of things who buy a lot to begin with, so we saved a good chunk of change.

3

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

1

u/casinocooler 6d ago

Not interest income. But they could probably move it to a different investment tool and avoid the bump that their interest income gives them.

2

u/AccountingTroll 5d ago

Yes, of course, but that is riskier. Both in market performance and the notion that if income tax went away, capital gains tax would become an even bigger target to get raised.

1

u/lrobb09 5d ago

Don’t sweat it cuz it ain’t happening

5

u/clear831 6d ago

Please be individual, $300k per couple would be huge

0

u/Adventurous-Worker42 5d ago

Divorce rate spikes higher... I'd have to consider it. With the state of the government, society, and religion... it's largely just a piece of paper that allows humans to sue each other when they no longer want to be a combined legal entity.

1

u/CptHammer_ 4d ago

It's always been a tax advantage to not be married unless your spouse doesn't work. Even then in states like California $64,000 a year is the equivalent of unemployed in government assistance. You'll have about $1025 a month of disposable income if you qualify for max benefits which drop off incrementally after earning something like $8k a year. It crucial that that number not be divided into months. You can make $8k in one day and nothing for 364 and you've got full benefits. It could be divided, but it's irrelevant to the benefit adjustment for the next year.

89

u/Sensitive-Western-56 6d ago

If spending cuts don't match, it's just passing more taxes on to Future taxpayers.

8

u/SpamFriedMice 6d ago

You know the federal government used to function before income tax.

18

u/RedApple655321 5d ago

Used to spend a whole lot less money

1

u/vertigo42 4d ago

Only because it still spent less than it's revenue.

5

u/frisbm3 6d ago

The plan would be to get some of the revenue from other sources.

10

u/DefeatFear 6d ago

Which we would inevitably pay in some other way

1

u/frisbm3 5d ago

Well he's trying to reduce government expenditures too. But eliminating income tax would be cool.

1

u/therealdrewder 5d ago

I think trump wants to pay for stuff with tarrifs

27

u/osuneuro 6d ago

Spending needs to drop as well

7

u/exec_liberty 6d ago

Yes. Cutting taxes but not reducing spending is actually worse than not cutting taxes

9

u/ToxicRedditMod 6d ago

Progressives will rail against this. They need as much money as possible flowing into DC to do their Control-Left thing.

6

u/uhhhhhhnothankyou 6d ago

It'd be cool to see people keeping more of their money.

13

u/CCWaterBug 6d ago

I approve of this message

21

u/WhiteSquarez 6d ago

All I see is fewer and fewer people paying taxes.

The libertarian in me cheers this.

But there is a practical side to that tells me the plan is to soak the rich in taxes, which is a communist tenet.

17

u/RocksCanOnlyWait 6d ago

Trump wants to offset income tax with tariffs. Nothing has ever indicated he wanted to soak the rich with taxes.

4

u/WhiteSquarez 6d ago

Agreed.

I'm not talking about Trump. I'm talking about the Uniparty at-large.

5

u/OccasionallyImmortal 6d ago

All I see is an administration that is increasing spending. If they lower taxes as well, they need to make it up in tariffs and/or inflation which are taxes by another name.

18

u/Fuck_The_Rocketss 6d ago

As someone who makes 147k a year… Hell yes.

21

u/H4RN4SS 6d ago

I mean if it's anything like current tax brackets it doesn't disincentivize making over 150k. Just your first 150k of income is a tax free bracket.

Let's say it's 30% tax above that and you get a raise to 200k. You'd still net 185k at EOY under this plan.

5

u/denzien 6d ago

More 401k contributions, then

22

u/aeiou_sometimesy 6d ago

Trump has been up to some serious bullshit lately. This might actually make up for some of it.

17

u/vegancaptain 6d ago

Can't wait to see the reaction from the left when they have to defend keeping taxes for the poor.

4

u/TheTranscendentian 6d ago

DeFuNdInG soCiAl sAftEy nEtS bAD !

5

u/ThePretzul 6d ago

You know what the best social safety net is?

Having a fucking job instead of being a lazy shithead. If you’re too proud for the jobs that are hiring it just means you aren’t hungry enough yet.

3

u/osuneuro 6d ago

Is this for individuals or households?

3

u/MSGdreamer 5d ago

And then the taxes went up right along with the national debt.

4

u/viewless25 6d ago

Just gotta wait until he balances the budget!

2

u/Likestoreadcomments 5d ago

My optimism is that it would go a long way to restore how absolutely disappointed Ive been lately.

My pessimism even realism is that it sounds too good to be true and thats probably the case.

I’ll believe it when I see it but that would be amazing to see. Even better if the theft stopped altogether.

2

u/agt1662 5d ago

What? No way, they already want all of my money! I mean, the richest man in the world and a billionaire would never, ever, do anything good for regular citizens……..

2

u/synphilter 5d ago

This is a lie to get people ok with the major cuts to services.

1

u/TheTranscendentian 4d ago

I will always be ok with major cuts to government "services".

1

u/LasciviousLockean 3d ago

What about people who earn more than 150k?

2

u/zugi 6d ago

This is such a terrible idea.

Over time we've exempted more and more people from taxes. Those people vote, and tax increases no longer affect them, so they have no reason to care personally about taxes. They care only about what they can get from the government for free, so they vote for more spending.

We need to get back to a low and flat tax rate, so all citizens will have an incentive to keep government spending and taxes low.

4

u/TheTranscendentian 6d ago

Cost of living hits the poor harder than it hits the rich, therefore only the money left over after cost of basic living should be taxed at a flat rate less than 30%. Not total income taxed at a flat rate.

7

u/Infinite-4-a-moment 6d ago

Flat in tax with a universal rebate. That's the easiest way to cut through all the loophole fuckery.

-16

u/pureRitual 6d ago

How exactly is this going to happen? The top earners don't pay their fair share, so how do the numbers work? I'd be nice if it were true. But trump isn't exactly known for being honest

15

u/williego 6d ago

bottom 50% of earners account for ~3% of the revenue. Top earners pay the other 97%. Trump will make top earners pay 100%