President Trump has been drawing fire for many things over his nearly 100 day office and one of the criticisms he faced was that he failed to make good on his promise to revamp the tax system. The problem with the proposal made by the president is that it seems to be unfairly skewed in favor of the affluent, something that is not what the average American wants.
'Biggest tax cuts in history'
The Trump administration termed their proposal as 'the biggest tax cuts in history', a caption probably aimed at highlighting the move considering that the President himself is under fire for NOT moving ahead with his tax reforms as he had promised during the campaign. The party has claimed that the proposal will simplify the tax system which is seen as unnecessarily burdensome and complex. Their chief claim is that these tax reforms will boost the economy and improve employment. However, the opposition and critics are not quite agreeing with this rosy picture.
Benefits for the rich, claim critics
The biggest grouse that critic and the opposition have about the proposed tax cuts is that it is heavily skewed in favor of the affluent, which includes the president himself. Among other changes, the proposal aims to bring down personal income tax brackets down to three categories. Corporates will enjoy a tax slash from 35% to 15%. This means that along with other business owners, Donald Trump will benefit significantly from the tax cuts.
Another controversial part of the proposal put forth by the Republican leader is the AMT cut. The Alternative Minimum Tax or AMT is a mechanism that ensures that the rich cannot claim so many tax cuts that they end up with a zero dollar tax bill. Trump has benefited heavily from the AMT in the past. This is another reason why the critics are looking at the tax reform as the president's personal agenda rather doing any good to the American economy as a whole.
In what can be seen as a double whammy, the proposal also gets rid of many tax deductions. This will result in the tax burden rising substantially in states that have a higher tax structure, such as New York and this is another reason for the critique of the proposal.