Trump could reap millions in tax plan
Proposals to cut estate taxes, AMT would benefit wealthy
President Trump is making one thing clear about his plan to cut taxes: It won’t be a windfall for the richest Americans, including him.
“It’s not good for me, believe me,” Trump said in a speech unveiling the tax reform blueprint Wednesday.
“We’re targeting relief to working families,” Trump said in Indianapolis. “We will make sure benefits are focused on the middle class, the working men and women, not the highest-income earners.”
A lot would have to change before that’s true.
Trump’s initial plan — backed by Republican leadership on Capitol Hill — would eliminate the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and estate taxes. It would also tax “pass through” businesses at 25%.
Both of these changes could greatly benefit Trump and his family’s business empire.
Trump chose to maintain ownership of his businesses while president, an arrangement that government watchdogs have criticized because of the potential for conflicts of interest.
The alternative minimum tax prevents people from avoiding tax entirely through deductions and credits — and is overwhelmingly paid by the rich. Previous analyses found repealing the AMT would have saved Trump $31 million in 2005, the year for which a partial Trump tax return is available.
Trump’s initial plan also would tax “pass through” businesses at 25%, instead of the income tax rate their owners would pay. Most U.S. businesses are taxed under their owners’ individual income tax rate instead of the corporate rate. According to Vox, the “vast majority” of the Trump Organization is considered “pass through” as it revolves around real estate and branding deals, though it’s unclear whether Trump’s businesses would fall under this rate or not.
What’s more, Trump wants to eliminate the estate tax, which is
appear to be caving to pressure?
“It was a popular thing last Sunday. But there’s still an opportunity,” Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton said Wednesday. “We have to be a voice for others that don’t have the voice we have.”
Yet true unity, especially in message, seems hard to find.
When former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick became the first player to protest during the anthem in August 2016, he did so with the intent of using his platform to raise awareness about police brutality and other social injustices. Other players, such as 49ers teammate Eric Reid, Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins, Denver Broncos linebacker Brandon Marshall and Miami Dolphins receiver Kenny Stills, joined him in either kneeling or raising a fist during the anthem.
Now some of those players are concerned that Trump’s comments, including those made on Wednesday when he said the NFL business would “go to hell” if the league didn’t change its rules regarding protests during the anthem, have obscured the meaning of their stances.
“We can’t get lost in what Trump’s said,” Marshall told USA TODAY Sports on Wednesday. “We have to try to change the narrative back to what the original message was about.” Others agree.
“I kind of don’t want President Trump to kind of hijack the narrative of what the protest started with and what it’s ultimately about,” Colts safety Darius Butler said.
The best way to reclaim that narrative, players around the league said this week, is to continue talking about the social issues and backing up their words with action, whether or not they continue to protest.
Marshall, who knelt before eight games last year, said he had not yet decided what he’ll do this Sunday. The Broncos are unlikely to have a team-wide action.
“You’ll never have everybody that would kneel. Everybody can stand ( but) that means nothing,” Marshall said. “In my opinion, that means nothing. If we all stand and lock arms, I understand that’s showing unity, but I mean, I just don’t see the point in it, me personally.”
Thursday in Green Bay, however, arms could be locked all around the stadium. Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers has asked that fans join the team in that gesture, saying the team wants to “show people that we can be connected and we can grow together.”
In Seattle, where the Seahawks decided as a team to remain in the locker room during the anthem last week, cornerback Richard Sherman said his teammates still needed to discuss their future plans. But Sherman said last week’s major statement was in direct response to Trump and noted that each week moving forward may be different.
At least half of the Raiders’ roster chose to sit during the national anthem before their Sunday
Night Football game at Washington in one of the most emphatic protests during Week 3. Raiders defensive end Khalil Mack, who was among those who sat, said the Raiders’ protest was “probably a one-time thing.”
“We wanted to make our point, and it’s done now. At the same time, we want to be more effective in the community at using our voices and doing positive things throughout the community. That should be the way we move forward from it,” said Mack, who spent several hours Monday visiting a children’s hospital in Oakland with teammates.
While the message has been muddled externally, or turned into a debate about respect for flag or the military, Trump’s comments and subsequent protests have inspired conversations within locker rooms like never before.
New York Giants offensive lineman Justin Pugh, who is white, said his opinion has changed dramatically from when Kaepernick first chose to take a knee. Pugh said he has talked with teammates about their experiences, and he will support any who choose to continue a protest. Three Giants — safety Landon Collins, defensive tackle Damon Harrison and defensive end Olivier Vernon — kneeled last week.
“I don’t know the right way to do it, I don’t know the wrong way to do it,” Pugh said. “I just know that guys have a right to say what they want to say. That’s what makes America so great, and I’m going to stand by my guys in the locker room and my teammates.”