The playbook is always the same: when a Republican president proposes allowing people and businesses to keep more of the money they earn, the talking points come out that it is tax cuts for the rich, that it will harm the middle class and poor, that it will increase the deficit.  Normally, it is hard to give concrete examples because the tax code is so complicated.  But Trump's is finally an effort to truly simplify, so I thought I would give some real-world examples:

A family of four making $60,000 (around the median family income in the U.S.) would get their first $24,000 tax-free and their next $36,000 at 12%, which is $4,320 in taxes.  Then they would get a $3,200 tax credit for their two children, because Trump is proposing doubling the existent credit to replace personal exemptions.  The net tax would be $1,120, or around 1.8% of income.  The families could live in low-tax states or high-tax states and could rent or own their homes.  They would all pay the same.  That looks extremely fair.  That looks like a simplified system that would truly help the significant majority of people. 

Let's look at a family of four making $1 million.  Let's say they have $100,000 in mortgage interest and charitable deductions, leaving a taxable income of $900,000.  Their blended tax rate would probably be around 30% with a top rate of 35%.  So their tax would be $270,000.  They would not get the child credit because they make too much. 

In other words, a family of four making one million would pay as much as 240 families making a total of $14.4 million, but to Democrats, that isn't enough.

Many Democrats and Republicans argue that you shouldn't get rid of state and local tax deductions because some people in high-tax states might pay more.  Around 30% currently itemize deductions, and a much smaller percentage have over $24,000 in itemized deductions, and most of those would be defined as "rich."  I would love to see Pelosi and Schumer go around the country telling people in Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, Texas, and other low-tax states that they should pay more federal income taxes than people in California and New York even when those people could make more money.  That certainly doesn't sound fair to me, and Democrats are all for fairness, aren't they?

We also hear that the government will lose money with tax cuts, but the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts show that this is not true.  It is clear that allowing individuals and businesses to keep more money to invest, save, and spend as they like generates more economic growth and more money for the government.

It is time reporters gave actual examples instead of just repeating and reporting Democrat talking points.