Senate Finance Committee would permanently cut corporate tax rates. But benefits for individuals and families, like doubling the standard deduction and cutting individual rates, would disappear after 2025. Republicans say they hope a future Congress will decide to keep the tax cuts in place,

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, is among those who say the only way to stick to those rules it to let the individual tax breaks expire.

"One of the ways to game the system is to make things expire,"

family earning a median income of $73,000 will get a tax cut of nearly $1,500, according to Hatch.

So pass any bill because you need a point on the board

change the rules so you can get a point on the board

tell Americans nearly get 1500 a year ( thats laughable ) sounds like a geico commercial

Trump will have Savings of about $1.1 billion from Just repealing the estate tax

But its going to help the middle class ...........:confused:

drain the swamp
term limits

this tax plan crap is just creative financing that makes us all poorer but rich get richer , sounds like dirty politics. There must be some good points to this tax plan no? or are you just focusing on the negatives

I'd like to choose not to pay taxes also.

drain the swamp
term limits

this tax plan crap is just creative financing that makes us all poorer but rich get richer , sounds like dirty politics. There must be some good points to this tax plan no? or are you just focusing on the negatives

I'd like to choose not to pay taxes also.

My take on it is the main thrust is to get the "economy" booming. One of the reasons the "middle class" is disappearing is because the economy is not vibrant enough to expand and provide the capital to create the jobs needed to support a healthy "middle class." If that doesn't happen, then not only will various tax breaks expire, so will the Republican hold on their majorities. And the Dems will then reinstitute their economically sluggish tax policies. But they will accompany that with enough giveaways and "supports" for "families" and for the shrinking "middle class" (which will all, obviously, be the fault of the Republicans).

And the debt spiral will continue to grow. But that's OK. At least everyone will be paying their "fair share."

drain the swamp
term limits

this tax plan crap is just creative financing that makes us all poorer but rich get richer , sounds like dirty politics. There must be some good points to this tax plan no? or are you just focusing on the negatives

I'd like to choose not to pay taxes also.

Seems good is based on the size of ones wallet...

seem you got the negative side covered

Seems good is based on the size of ones wallet...

seem you got the negative side covered

So do you want a large enough private sector economy to support the growth in size of peoples wallets? Or do you prefer that the government fill our wallets.

And don't give me that crap about government filling the wallets of corporations by not taxing them. Government does not generate the money that businesses do. Government doesn't fill up wallets. It empties them. Taking less taxes does not fill any wallets, it drains them less. We've had several years of government taking a higher level of business taxes, and, magically, the "middle class" is supposedly disappearing.

Right ... the answer is to take even more out of business wallets. That will obviously drive a "middle class" comeback.

And, naturally, the big businesses will continue to donate to the party in power in order to somehow, nearly always get things working in their favor. Like getting more regulations passed that benefit them against their competitors.

Big is in. Middle just can't compete with the big government big business complex. And little gets mollified with "breaks" and giveaways from government.

And the national debt spiral will continue to grow.

Senate Finance Committee would permanently cut corporate tax rates. But benefits for individuals and families, like doubling the standard deduction and cutting individual rates, would disappear after 2025. Republicans say they hope a future Congress will decide to keep the tax cuts in place,

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, is among those who say the only way to stick to those rules it to let the individual tax breaks expire.

"One of the ways to game the system is to make things expire,"

family earning a median income of $73,000 will get a tax cut of nearly $1,500, according to Hatch.

So pass any bill because you need a point on the board

change the rules so you can get a point on the board

tell Americans nearly get 1500 a year ( thats laughable ) sounds like a geico commercial

Trump will have Savings of about $1.1 billion from Just repealing the estate tax

But its going to help the middle class ...........:confused:

"would permanently cut corporate tax rates"

if that happens, watch what happens to the value of companies, to the stock market, and to unemployment.

"tell Americans nearly get 1500 a year ( thats laughable ) "

If that estimate turns out not to be true, they deserve to catch a lot of heat. Remind me, when Obama sais that the ACA would save the average family $2500 a year, were you as skeptical?

I'll put it in the same account I'm depositing my $2,500 annual Obamacare savings . . .

If the GOP plan passes this year, would it apply to the 2017 tax returns?

If so, and if the GOP's claims about savings prove to be false, they will get rightfully creamed in the 18 midterms. Creamed.

If the GOP plan does in fact put a few more bucks in the pockets of the middle class (and if the stock market takes off and wages go up), the GOP will clobber the Dems in the midterms.

High stakes game here.

Jury is still out on this. I have at least $500-700 (what I pay my accountant) of potential savings if I can file a return the size of a postcard myself. That said I live in a high tax state and RI will stand to lose some tax revenue - look for them and other blue states to tax the crap out of their residents with state taxes to make up the loss. But I guess its only fair as from what I read the northeast is heavily subsidized by other states. I think our beef will really be with our state legislators if this tax plan goes into effect. Time to cut state spending.

Jury is still out on this. I have at least $500-700 (what I pay my accountant) of potential savings if I can file a return the size of a postcard myself. That said I live in a high tax state and RI will stand to lose some tax revenue - look for them and other blue states to tax the crap out of their residents with state taxes to make up the loss. But I guess its only fair as from what I read the northeast is heavily subsidized by other states. I think our beef will really be with our state legislators if this tax plan goes into effect. Time to cut state spending.

And yet we've been told, including by some on this forum, that the high tax states were subsidizing the rest of the country.

Jury is still out on this. I have at least $500-700 (what I pay my accountant) of potential savings if I can file a return the size of a postcard myself. That said I live in a high tax state and RI will stand to lose some tax revenue - look for them and other blue states to tax the crap out of their residents with state taxes to make up the loss. But I guess its only fair as from what I read the northeast is heavily subsidized by other states. I think our beef will really be with our state legislators if this tax plan goes into effect. Time to cut state spending.

You must have a complicated return. I have partnerships, real estate, div, interest, cap. gains and I do my own.

Where have you read that the NE is subsidized by other states? Do you have any links to articles? I've read many times that the NE states pay more to the feds than they get back.

I'm so glad I'm retired and taxes are not my big worry, but I see it as the rich getting richer.

You must have a complicated return. I have partnerships, real estate, div, interest, cap. gains and I do my own.

Where have you read that the NE is subsidized by other states? Do you have any links to articles? I've read many times that the NE states pay more to the feds than they get back.

Paul,
My taxes are indeed complicated - use to do my own but not anymore. Here is a link to an article that explains both sides of SALT (state and local tax deduction) and how it fits into the plan.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/30/16557554/the-state-and-local-tax-deduction-explained

Thanks, but that doesn't say that the NE is heavily subsidized by other states. The state and local tax deduction is only 1 part of federal taxes. W/o that deduction, we would be taxed 2 x on the same $ of income.

Red states get more $ from the gov. per $1 then they pay to the gov. Blue states get less $ from the gov per $1 then they pay to the gov.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_y our_taxes.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-more-dependent-on-federal-government-2015-7

Thanks, but that doesn't say that the NE is heavily subsidized by other states. The state and local tax deduction is only 1 part of federal taxes. W/o that deduction, we would be taxed 2 x on the same $ of income.

Red states get more $ from the gov. per $1 then they pay to the gov. Blue states get less $ from the gov per $1 then they pay to the gov.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_y our_taxes.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-more-dependent-on-federal-government-2015-7

You're right its only one loophole. The other loopholes such as mortgage insurance are just to controversial. Again, we'll see how it goes. I'll let you know next year how it impacts me - if it improves the lives of the majority and improves the countries economy I'm all for it.

how can any fiscal conservative voter support this BS? Don’t forget regan reverses hisbtwx cuts once he realized how badly he #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up the national debt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the GOP plan passes this year, would it apply to the 2017 tax returns?

If so, and if the GOP's claims about savings prove to be false, they will get rightfully creamed in the 18 midterms. Creamed.

If the GOP plan does in fact put a few more bucks in the pockets of the middle class (and if the stock market takes off and wages go up), the GOP will clobber the Dems in the midterms.

High stakes game here.

No, the 2017 law is already set.

The tax benefit to the Middle Class is minimal. The real recipients are the super wealthy and corporations who will, if history is any guide, use the savings to buy back stocks and increase dividends.

Companies in the US area already sitting on over 2 trillion in cash with another 2.5 trillion overseas. A lack of funds isn't inhibiting domestic growth.

You're not going to see much economic impact from this plan if it passes. Many think the market is already overvalued and the idea that more free cash will lead to wage growth is silly. Companies pay based on perceived value, not available money to spend.

how can any fiscal conservative voter support this BS? Don’t forget regan reverses hisbtwx cuts once he realized how badly he #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up the national debt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's how...slashing corporate tax rates COULD be good for lot of people.

Doubling the standard deduction, will help a lot of people who are poor to lower middle class. This is bad?

No, the 2017 law is already set.

The tax benefit to the Middle Class is minimal. The real recipients are the super wealthy and corporations who will, if history is any guide, use the savings to buy back stocks and increase dividends.

Companies in the US area already sitting on over 2 trillion in cash with another 2.5 trillion overseas. A lack of funds isn't inhibiting domestic growth.

You're not going to see much economic impact from this plan if it passes. Many think the market is already overvalued and the idea that more free cash will lead to wage growth is silly. Companies pay based on perceived value, not available money to spend.

"The real recipients are the super wealthy and corporations"

Who benefits from doubling the standard deduction? The wealthy itemize deductions, they don't use the standard deduction.

"if history is any guide, use the savings to buy back stocks and increase dividends. "

Buying back stocks, increases stock price. That's good for everyone who has a 401k or an IRA, correct?

"Companies in the US area already sitting on over 2 trillion in cash with another 2.5 trillion overseas. A lack of funds isn't inhibiting domestic growth"

A lack of confidence is stifling growth. The cost of growing here, is an impediment to growth. False?

The Trump Plan cost everybody who makes less than I think it was $125,000 money and saves money for everybody making over 125,000. Funny how the admin. shifted away from saying it was a reduction for everybody. Now the former deficit Hawks have their foot in their mouth after seeing how much the defecits will explode. The middle class thought they were going to benefit by the Trump presidency and they got played.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Trump Plan cost everybody who makes less than I think it was $125,000 money and saves money for everybody making over 125,000. Funny how the admin. shifted away from saying it was a reduction for everybody. Now the former deficit Hawks have their foot in their mouth after seeing how much the defecits will explode. The middle class thought they were going to benefit by the Trump presidency and they got played.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which is the trump plan? There's a house plan and a senate plan, which is Trumps?

"The middle class thought they were going to benefit by the Trump presidency and they got played"

I am middle class (maybe upper middle class, no higher than that), and my IRA and 401k are going through the roof. That's real, Paul. I gave Obama credit for the stock market going up, fairness says Trump gets credit too.

If he slashes corporate tax rates, and he gives an incentive for corporate money overseas to come back here, that has to help at least a bit. Unemployment is very low right now. So if companies want to grow, they will have to pay attractive wages, because there's not much supply of labor.

Bill Clinton and George Bush cut taxes, and the economy did very well. Tax cuts CAN help, not always (see Kansas).

No, the 2017 law is already set.

The tax benefit to the Middle Class is minimal. The real recipients are the super wealthy and corporations who will, if history is any guide, use the savings to buy back stocks and increase dividends.

Companies in the US area already sitting on over 2 trillion in cash with another 2.5 trillion overseas. A lack of funds isn't inhibiting domestic growth.

You're not going to see much economic impact from this plan if it passes. Many think the market is already overvalued and the idea that more free cash will lead to wage growth is silly. Companies pay based on perceived value, not available money to spend.

You seem to have a static view rather than a dynamic one. The history of buying back stocks and increasing dividends wasn't always, as in the past eight years, dependent on quantitative easing with its huge influx of government money. Rather it was based on money generated by business, and yes, also helped by favorable tax rates which was not an excess of money as is government pumping an over supply of money.

Money generated by private sector business creates actual wealth which makes possible a real and expanding market. Fiat money not based on actual business is a hope and prayer that somehow it will stimulate rather than inflate. The recent government pumping has created more inflation than stimulation. And if corporations merely sit on cash, it loses value (inflation). And if investors can hedge against inflation by buying stocks and bonds before the price inflates, then sell them later for gains to those who don't have that initial pile of fiat money to spend, they'll do that rather then risking investing in new business ventures.

And lowering business taxes along with decreasing regulations that benefit the large corporations at the expense of the smaller businesses, can make small business startups more economically feasible (create perceived value, as you put it). As well, there will be less incentive to move money and jobs out of the country.

improves the countries economy

seems everyone is saying this ? if unemployment is at historic low's how does a huge tax cut IMPROVE the economy ?

you will not see support from employers to increase in the min wage
or better heath insurance plans from employers more matching 401k contributions or just an increase in Pay



House of Representatives eliminates nearly $65 billion in credits, deductions, and exclusions that help students and their families afford tuition and student loan payments,

These cuts would take away the ability for nearly 12 million Americans to deduct interest paid on their student loans.

all that so the math will work to get rid of the estate Tax repeal hows that help? middle class

if your rich you can afford to send your kids to school with out loans so it wont effect the rich ..

the GOP is trying to spread the tax cuts all across the backs of the middle class ( distribute the weight so it dosn't feel like their on our backs when it clearly they are )

improves the countries economy

seems everyone is saying this ? if unemployment is at historic low's how does a huge tax cut IMPROVE the economy ?

you will not see support from employers to increase in the min wage
or better heath insurance plans from employers more matching 401k contributions or just an increase in Pay



House of Representatives eliminates nearly $65 billion in credits, deductions, and exclusions that help students and their families afford tuition and student loan payments,

These cuts would take away the ability for nearly 12 million Americans to deduct interest paid on their student loans.

all that so the math will work to get rid of the estate Tax repeal hows that help? middle class

if your rich you can afford to send your kids to school with out loans so it wont effect the rich ..

the GOP is trying to spread the tax cuts all across the backs of the middle class ( distribute the weight so it dosn't feel like their on our backs when it clearly they are )

"if unemployment is at historic low's how does a huge tax cut IMPROVE the economy ? "

People have more money to spend. Businesses have money (and just as important, more confidence) to invest in growth. When corporate tax rates are cut, every business in the country is instantly more valuable than it was the day before. That is a good thing.

When unemployment is high, businesses can get more labor for cheap, because workers have no alternative. When everyone is already working, and businesses want to hire, they need to make it worth our while to leave our current jobs and work for them.

"you will not see support from employers to increase in the min wage"

No, you won't. What you will see, is the forces of supply and demand, force wages up. When the free market decides that workers are worth more, that's good. When the government decides that something is worth more than what someone wants to pay for it, that can be (isn't always ) bad.

"These cuts would take away the ability for nearly 12 million Americans to deduct interest paid on their student loans"

It also takes away my ability to deduct state taxes. But doubling the standard exemption, that alone, will help a lot of people at the bottom of the economic spectrum. Rich people do not take the standard deduction, they itemize deductions. I'm not an accountant, so can someone explain how this doesn't put more money in the pockets of lower income people?

"the GOP is trying to spread the tax cuts all across the backs of the middle class "

When all you do is focus on the things that will increase taxes, and you ignore everything that offsets that to lower taxes (like increasing the standard deduction), yes that's true. But your effective tax rate is the result of many moving pieces within this plan, not just the pieces that increase taxes.

If it gets passed, and the middle class sees a widespread tax hike, the GOP will get creamed in the next election, and they will deserve it.

"

If it gets passed, and the middle class sees a widespread tax hike, the GOP will get creamed in the next election, and they will deserve it.

We'll see what the final bill is.

The political calculus is, I think, that the impacts will be felt towards the end of 2018 and in the 2019 filing season after the 2018 election. I think theyGOP are just hoping to get 2108 to stay towards the right.

2020 has the potential to be more challenging, if the Dem's can field a candidate worth voting for. 2020 could easily see serious infighting with Trump getting primaried. That would be chaotic for 2020 house/senate seats.

Some of the changes (like taking tuition stipends for graduate students as income) just seem punitive and stupid. That one in particular, in an age where we need more tech savvy, educated citizens, lets make it harder to afford graduate school...

I'm not worried, at least I can write off my private jet costs now...

You can’t deduct your grad school loans but you can deduct your private Christian academy loans. Let that sink in.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You can’t deduct your grad school loans but you can deduct your private Christian academy loans. Let that sink in.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is that true? If so, it's stupid.

Nebe, you own a small business? SO doesn't it help you, If the corporate income tax rate goes from 35% to 20%? If you keep 80% of your income, instead of 65% of your income, that's a 23% increase. That doesn't help you at all? I would sincerely hope that it would. But it's quite possible I'm missing something.

We'll see what the final bill is.

The political calculus is, I think, that the impacts will be felt towards the end of 2018 and in the 2019 filing season after the 2018 election. I think theyGOP are just hoping to get 2108 to stay towards the right.

2020 has the potential to be more challenging, if the Dem's can field a candidate worth voting for. 2020 could easily see serious infighting with Trump getting primaried. That would be chaotic for 2020 house/senate seats.

Some of the changes (like taking tuition stipends for graduate students as income) just seem punitive and stupid. That one in particular, in an age where we need more tech savvy, educated citizens, lets make it harder to afford graduate school...

I'm not worried, at least I can write off my private jet costs now...

"2020 could easily see serious infighting with Trump getting primaried. That would be chaotic for 2020 house/senate seats."

Agreed 100%.

But if the economy is still steamrolling in 2018 or 2020, I suspect people will be willing to put up with Trump's idiotic behavior. I know I will.

Is that true? If so, it's stupid.

Nebe, you own a small business? SO doesn't it help you, If the corporate income tax rate goes from 35% to 20%? If you keep 80% of your income, instead of 65% of your income, that's a 23% increase. That doesn't help you at all? I would sincerely hope that it would. But it's quite possible I'm missing something.
Yes. It will help Me. I will use that savings to boost my savings and pay off debt. I could also use that savings to outsource my production to a 3rd world country to save even more.

Or.. they could raise my taxes, in which case I would look to widen my deductions and hire employees.

See how the republicans dupe you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is that true? If so, it's stupid.

Nebe, you own a small business? SO doesn't it help you, If the corporate income tax rate goes from 35% to 20%? If you keep 80% of your income, instead of 65% of your income, that's a 23% increase. That doesn't help you at all? I would sincerely hope that it would. But it's quite possible I'm missing something.

Those numbers are really misleading and useless. Only thing that matters is effective tax rate. Effective tax rates for sole proprietors is 13% S business 26.9%. The 23% increase is a complete pie in the sky calculation and almost certainly way off. Misleading! Sad!

This thread is filled with the sad humor of how the U.S. federal government can maintain its monopoly of power and wealth and still maintain the illusion that it is the great and sole benefactor of the people's well being.

Take a huge chunk of the wealth created by the people's production. Redistribute it in order to create some fictional sort of "fair" equilibrium. Siphon inordinate amounts into the pockets of the distribution system which is guaranteed perpetual income, superior health care, and above average pension benefits. Constantly, by fiddling with tax rates, promising to fix the inevitable opposite consequences of what it had previously promised. So, supposedly, by such fiddling, curing the ills that it imposed with its previous fiddling and regulating. Meanwhile, there is the (again inevitable) continual rise in its national (federal government) debt. And the continuing suppression and shrinking of a so-called middle class. And the growth of the number who are dependent on this generous government largesse. If we just keep fiddling with the tax rates in such ways to squeeze the most out of human producers and create the best ways to spend it, we will keep going in the right direction toward that illusory, unachievable "equity."

And maintained is the lack of any perceived connection between this process and the ills which it constantly claims to be fixing.

There's that killing of the goose that laid the golden eggs fairy tale. But it is, after all, a fairy tale. So we can't learn anything from it.

Didn't one of the cabinet ask CEOs at a recent meeting if they would invest and hire bc of the tax cuts and only like 1/3 said they would. He had no idea that taxes weren't what was holding them back.

As I said, if you are middle class and thought this tax plan would help you, you've been played.

Yes. It will help Me. I will use that savings to boost my savings and pay off debt. I could also use that savings to outsource my production to a 3rd world country to save even more.

Or.. they could raise my taxes, in which case I would look to widen my deductions and hire employees.

See how the republicans dupe you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If they raised your taxes, how does that incentivize you to hire more employees, exactly?

Sorry, all I see, is that this helps you. Good for you and all the small business owners.

Didn't one of the cabinet ask CEOs at a recent meeting if they would invest and hire bc of the tax cuts and only like 1/3 said they would. He had no idea that taxes weren't what was holding them back.

As I said, if you are middle class and thought this tax plan would help you, you've been played.

Nebe said the corporate tax cut helps him. There is a common belief among liberals, that owning a business, and being middle class, are mutually exclusive. Not every business is Walmart or Amazon. Tons of small businesses are owned by middle class folks. How does the corporate tax cut not help all of them?

And how does doubling the standard deduction, not help everyone who takes that deduction?

Not every business is Walmart or Amazon. Tons of small businesses are owned by middle class folks. How does the corporate tax cut not help all of them?

The problem is that there are dozens of variables. The tax rate for small business drops from 39.6 to 25. Almost 90% of small business pay 25 or less. Enormous tax cuts for the very wealthy, but elimination of deductions for medical expenses, reduction or elimination of deductions for college and grad school. In the end, best case scenario is several hundred dollars on average savings for middle class tax payers, though many see bills increase.

The problem is that there are dozens of variables. The tax rate for small business drops from 39.6 to 25. Almost 90% of small business pay 25 or less. Enormous tax cuts for the very wealthy, but elimination of deductions for medical expenses, reduction or elimination of deductions for college and grad school. In the end, best case scenario is several hundred dollars on average savings for middle class tax payers, though many see bills increase.

Absolutely agreed, there are many moving pieces that will effect people differently. Many of the pieces offset each other. If it's as bad as you describe, the GOP deserves to get creamed in the next election.

Absolutely agreed, there are many moving pieces that will effect people differently. Many of the pieces offset each other. If it's as bad as you describe, the GOP deserves to get creamed in the next election.

How bad it is depends on your perspective. If you are concerned with increasing the debt, both versions of the bill are bad. If you are concerned about major tax relief for the middle class it does little. If tax relief for the very wealthy is important to you, it helps.

Their is the confusing message I'm getting from leftists. The middle class, they say, is disappearing. This is happening under the current tax rates. If those rates are lowered, that is supposed to hurt the middle class. What middle class? Isn't it disappearing?

What, exactly is this thing called the "middle class"? Is it an income thing? If it is by income, and most people work for small rather than large businesses, wouldn't the existence of more and pricier small business transactions occurring in relation to those of large businesses be desirable? Wouldn't regulations favoring small businesses over large ones be preferable? Shouldn't the Big government Big Business complex (monopoly) be busted? How is that process even begun?

Nebe said the corporate tax cut helps him. There is a common belief among liberals, that owning a business, and being middle class, are mutually exclusive. Not every business is Walmart or Amazon. Tons of small businesses are owned by middle class folks. How does the corporate tax cut not help all of them?

And how does doubling the standard deduction, not help everyone who takes that deduction?

The corp. tax cuts help corps. - which is fine if they hire more people. but a tax cut doesn't mean they will hire people.

The deduction helps people if they take the deduction but if the tax cuts causes people below $125K to pay more, that hurts the middle class (plus the SALT will kill the North East.

The corp. tax cuts help corps.

The deduction helps people if they take the deduction

.

this is some brilliance......:kewl:

Their is the confusing message I'm getting from leftists. The middle class, they say, is disappearing. This is happening under the current tax rates. If those rates are lowered, that is supposed to hurt the middle class. What middle class? Isn't it disappearing?

What, exactly is this thing called the "middle class"? Is it an income thing? If it is by income, and most people work for small rather than large businesses, wouldn't the existence of more and pricier small business transactions occurring in relation to those of large businesses be desirable? Wouldn't regulations favoring small businesses over large ones be preferable? Shouldn't the Big government Big Business complex (monopoly) be busted? How is that process even begun?

You aren't as confused as you appear. Small business is critical. The effective impact of the bill is that it does very little to help small business. The GOP for decades has stood with policies that favor big business over small business. The middle class is shrinking, but mostly because of downward mobility. Not what middle class means by definition, but what the standard of living for the middle class is today compared to what it used to be. This tax bill will likely continue the trend or increase it with the slimmest to no chance that it reverses it.

some of you should be wearing tutu's and shaking pom poms rooting for this tax bill...if you are correct it will guarantee gropin' Joe the white house in 2020 and the dems the house and senate(maybe sooner)...then everything will get fixed

Shouldn't the Big government Big Business complex (monopoly) be busted? How is that process even begun?

when the dems are in charge it's a "partnership"...when the repubs are in charge it 'corporate welfare"

isn't it great?...the government keeps chunks of your earnings throughout the year and you either pay someone, invest in books or software and spend inordinate amounts of time figuring ways they
may have created for you to get some of it back and argue with other over who is getting screwed worse.....

You aren't as confused as you appear. Small business is critical. The effective impact of the bill is that it does very little to help small business. The GOP for decades has stood with policies that favor big business over small business. The middle class is shrinking, but mostly because of downward mobility. Not what middle class means by definition, but what the standard of living for the middle class is today compared to what it used to be. This tax bill will likely continue the trend or increase it with the slimmest to no chance that it reverses it.

The problem, to me, of government actively "helping" small business is that its help always comes with strings. Strings which always gives government some power it didn't have before it tied itself with those strings to whomever it helps. The attachment becomes symbiotic. Whoever or whatever is "helped" forever is attached by those strings, and is dependent on that attachment, to the government. The notion that government helps business by getting out of its way is a non-starter for those who believe in government help. Their claim is that without government protection, there would be cheating, bribery, coercion, or simply the crushing of the little by the big with its greater monetary power.

Fine. I'm all for government fulfilling its duty within the social compact that the people agreed to. That compact requires a free market, freedom being the uncoerced exchange of property, speech, or ideas. Actual cheating, bribery, dishonesty, are all coercive tactics which the people would not object to the government prosecuting as a crime. We would actually demand it. The kind of government help which aids free exchange is not direct financial assistance or tax or regulatory favors, but the protection of freedom in the market.

And I hear, over and over, bald statements like the GOP or the Democrats have forever produced policies that favor this or that. But too often, when details are researched, the statements turn out to simply be political talking points. And they filter down to the public and are repeated as the truth. In another thread, for instance, it was claimed that Steve Bannon is a racist, misogynist, anti-Semite, etc. Researching that characterization, I did not find actual evidence of that claim, just innuendos emanating from some associations, or article titles, or a claim by a bitter ex-wife, none of which are corroborated by his actual personal or business or political relationships, which include Jews many of whom dispute any notion of anti-Semitism. Leftist journals like Salon just make up caricatures based on the flimsiest "evidence," and state them as true. And so the leftist fans believe it and it gets backed up by more mainstream outlets who repeat what's in the lesser journals.

So I am not persuaded by uncorroborated statements. Nor by those whose corroboration is either suspect, biased, or inconsistent. I don't admit to being a thorough researcher at all. But from the more than casual reading I have done on policies reputed to favor the rich at the expense of the poor or middle class, those policies were found to be so only by some inconsistent or not truly provable way. I have found, to my satisfaction by the evidence presented, that after Coolidge helped institute such policies, as well as after Jack Kennedy, Ron Reagan, and George W. Bush also did so, the market did greatly expand and grew jobs and higher incomes. I have read unconvincing rebuttals to those claims. But, whatever the facts, market expansion occurred in every one of those instances. Coolidge, unlike any other President after him, actually lowered the national debt.

As for the standard of living today for the "middle class" compared to what it used to be, I personally prefer the quality of living over the standard of living. They might be one and the same. Except, to me, standard of living is more about the number of things owned. Quality of living is more about satisfaction with the things owned and the durability of those things and of relationships and of the culture we live in.

I prefer that the government stay out of the way of either the standard or quality of living except insofar as it protects our freedom to pursue either one or combination of the two. That means, for me, that government doesn't define what those things are, nor tries to direct for whom those things apply.

We could get into a large discussion about how government protects or distorts our pursuit of preferred lives, but I am accused of rambling on too much, as I am beginning to do here, so the oversimplification will have to, hopefully, suffice.

some of you should be wearing tutu's and shaking pom poms rooting for this tax bill...if you are correct it will guarantee gropin' Joe the white house in 2020 and the dems the house and senate(maybe sooner)...then everything will get fixed
No, these bills as written now will do real structural harm...it's going to be a decade at least before we could even begin to repair. Get ready for 2 trillion dollar deficits as the new normal.

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me how giving corporations already making record profits a lot more money, and creating record deficits in the process, is going to create growth or lead to higher wages.

Where's the expert testimony? Where's the CBO analysis? The lack of thought going into this tax plan appears to just highlight the ruse, it's a payback scheme for years of Republican political support.

No, these bills as written now will do real structural harm...it's going to be a decade at least before we could even begin to repair. Get ready for 2 trillion dollar deficits as the new normal.

Which "structure"? The Progressive structure certainly hasn't been supported by balanced budgets. Is there something you would like to see repaired in the Progressive structure? Other than that politicians should act what you consider "responsibly"?

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me how giving corporations already making record profits a lot more money, and creating record deficits in the process, is going to create growth or lead to higher wages.

So should the tax plan include a proviso that corporations making record profits (in inflated currency) should not participate in the lowered tax rates that other corporations and businesses will get?

Where's the expert testimony? Where's the CBO analysis? The lack of thought going into this tax plan appears to just highlight the ruse, it's a payback scheme for years of Republican political support.

Testimony?? What . . . is this a trial? So you're saying that no so-called "experts" contributed to the tax plan? How often has the CBO been wrong? You're either very cynical or very partisan. Or you just like to rant.

Or you just like to rant.

:jump:

:jump:

Right back at ya. Spence likes to refer to posts he doesn't refute as rants. I threw that tidbit right back at him. And to anyone else who deflects merely by characterizing a post as a rant.

No, these bills as written now will do real structural harm...it's going to be a decade at least before we could even begin to repair. Get ready for 2 trillion dollar deficits as the new normal.



given how frequently you are wrong...I'll just assume this on that..or that on this

Which "structure"? The Progressive structure certainly hasn't been supported by balanced budgets. Is there something you would like to see repaired in the Progressive structure? Other than that politicians should act what you consider "responsibly"?
Sound logic. It's like, we're already screwed so let's just make the problem worse.

So should the tax plan include a proviso that corporations making record profits (in inflated currency) should not participate in the lowered tax rates that other corporations and businesses will get?
Corporations today on average are not over taxed. How about you apply revenue to things that will make the country stronger like infrastructure, research, education and debt reduction.

If there are variations in the tax code more favorable to one industry or not...then propose reform.

Testimony?? What . . . is this a trial? So you're saying that no so-called "experts" contributed to the tax plan? How often has the CBO been wrong? You're either very cynical or very partisan. Or you just like to rant.
if you're so confident in the tax proposals promoting long-term growth wouldn't you bring the economists before congress to participate in a bi-partisan discussion?

Crickets.

given how frequently you are wrong...I'll just assume this on that..or that on this
Have I ever been wrong?

Have I ever used the word "rant?"

Taxes

Are Red States Tax Takers And Blue States Tax Makers?
Against a national average of $1,935 in intergovernmental spending per American, red states receive just $1,879. Blue states get considerably more, at $2,124 per resident.
Kyle Sammin
By Kyle Sammin
November 17, 2017

With every debate on taxing and spending in Washington comes inevitable references to which states send more in taxes to the federal treasury than they receive in benefits for their citizens. The figures thrown around are sourced differently and vary widely, but the point of it all is for Democrats to point at poor, Republican states and call them hypocrites for doing exactly what Democrats say they should: taking money from richer places.

But how much of it is true? An op-ed in The New York Times this week accuses Republicans of favoring red states over blues ones in their plans, while repeating the old lie that small states’ equal representation in the Senate favors Republicans (the ten smallest states are currently represented there by nine Republicans, nine Democrats, and two independents who caucus with the Democrats; the ten largest states are represented by nine Republicans and eleven Democrats).

What kind of spending are they talking about? And what is behind these claims, which pit one part of the population against the other?
Who Pays More Taxes?

Let’s start with the taxes paid. In fiscal year 2016, the Internal Revenue Service collected a record $3.3 trillion in taxes nationwide. That money came from a total population of 312,471,695, according to the most recent census (for this article, the figures will only include the 50 states, Washington DC, and Puerto Rico). That gives us a national average of $10,622 in taxes for each American.

Even that figure is a little misleading, because the taxes collected include estate taxes, unemployment taxes, business taxes, and excises, which cannot be accurately attributed to one person. If we want to talk about individual income taxes only, the figure is a slightly lower $9,216 per person.

So do blue states pay more than red ones? Again, defining terms is important in answering the question. For this article, we’ll call states that voted for the Democratic candidate for president in 2008, 2012, and 2016 blue states. Those that voted Republican all three years are red, and those that shifted in different elections are purple.

The result: Democrats are correct on this fact. The blue states did pay more per capita in federal taxes than the red did. The $12,648 per capita taxation there is 118 percent of the national average. The purple states fell in between the two, slightly below the national average.

What accounts for the difference? Blue states are, on average, richer. Because we have a progressive tax system, more money comes from richer people, and if a state’s citizens are, on average, richer, they pay more into the federal fisc. The per capita income in the United States, according to the American Community Survey, is $28,889. In blue states, the figure is higher, at $32,295, which is 112 percent of the national average. The figures in the purple and red states are closer to the national average: the purple per capita income is $27,040 (94 percent of the national average) and in the red states the figure is $25,633 (89 percent of the national average).

Even with a flat tax, the rich pay more dollars of tax. The “flat” adjective refers only to the rate, so under a flat tax the rich still pay more, just not disproportionately more. But even so, the effective taxes paid in blue states are not very much higher than that of the reds and purples.

The IRS collected taxes equal to 37.03 percent of the income earned in America (again, this includes non-individual income taxes collected in a state, such as corporate tax and excises). In the blue states, the figure is a little higher: 39.16 percent. In the purples and reds, it is a little lower: 36.37 percent and 34.29 percent, respectively.

None of this is surprising. What is surprising is that Democrats often act like the red states are getting away with something. Progressive ideology has as one of its central tenets the idea that money should be transferred from the rich to the poor. In our progressive tax code, they have succeeded in enacting the first part of that equation. The only strange part is that they look askance at the poorer regions of the country for simply obeying the tax code.
Who Gets More Benefits?

How much the federal government takes in taxes is simple question. How much they pay out gets more complicated.

One way of looking at it is to see what percentage of states’ budgets are paid for by direct transfers of federal funds. That was the analysis done in a Pew Trusts report in July 2017, based on federal government data from fiscal year 2015. Intergovernmental transfers from the feds to the states include the money used to pay for programs that Washington funds but the states administer. About half goes to health-care programs; education and transportation spending also come out of these funds. They also include welfare programs, grants to local police forces, and other indirect federal spending within a state (this 2013 CBO report gives more details).

The results are somewhat at odds with the claims on the Left that the red states are takers while the blue states are makers. Of the ten states with the lowest percentage of funds coming from Washington, three are red, six are blue, and one is purple. The state with by far the lowest level of federal subsidization was the deeply red state of North Dakota. The highest ten included eight red states, but also two blue states: Oregon and New Mexico. (DC and Puerto Rico are excluded from these calculations because their relationships with the federal government are different than if they were states.)

On average, the three groups were not that far apart. Against a national average of 32.62 percent federal subsidy, the blue states received 30.80 percent. Purple states were almost exactly at the national level with 32.92 percent coming from Washington. Red state budgets averaged 35.75 percent federal money. As with the taxes, there is a slight tilt to one side, but nowhere near what you would think based on complaints from the Left.

A problem with this metric is that although federal funds make up a larger percentage of red states’ state budgets, the budgets in those states are generally lower overall than those of the free-spending blue states. If, instead of comparing federal funds to state budgets, we look at how much the federal government spends in intergovernmental grants per resident of a state, the results are turned on their heads.

Against a national average of $1,935 in intergovernmental spending per American, red states receive just $1,879. Blue states get considerably more, at $2,124 per resident. Purple states see the least of their money returned to them per capita, at just $1,770. Measured in this way, the blue states are getting quite a bit more than the red or purple.

Which States Get the Most of What They Paid?

The answer to the ultimate question requires us to compare what the states pay in and what they get back. Immediately, though, we have to understand that these intergovernmental transfers—the source of most calculations about these claims—are only a fraction of what the federal government spends. In 2016, the federal budget called for $3.9 trillion in spending, of which just $604 billion was in intergovernmental transfers. All of the claims about which states take what, therefore, are based on an analysis of just 15 percent of all federal spending.

Even within that limited range of figures, the results are not the open-and-shut case that critics from the Left would have us believe. For one thing: no state receives more in intergovernmental transfers than its citizens and corporations pay in federal taxes. The state that gets the most back in intergovernmental transfers is a blue state, New Mexico, at 80.27 percent. Red states West Virginia and Mississippi are the only other two that get back more than half of their taxes in this form of spending (67.30 percent and 63.12 percent, respectively).

This tells us nothing about the politics of those places, only that they are, on average, poorer, and therefore more eligible for federal programs for their residents. Delaware receives the smallest percentage back—9.89 percent. Again, this is probably a result of the disproportionate amount of corporate and trust income taxes coming from that state, not because of the politics of their state.
What About The Rest?

Other studies claim to take in the remaining 85 percent of federal spending and divvy it up among the states. Another Pew study does that through various methods, some of which make sense, others of which are harder to justify.

Nearly two-thirds of spending, they note, goes to individuals, not to state governments or groups. That makes it more difficult to attribute to one state. If a couple from Michigan retires and spends five months each year in Florida, to which state are their Social Security checks attributed? Their legal residence may be in Grand Rapids, but it is quite possible that they spend more of their money in Tampa.
As long as other people pay for you to survive, they will demand to control how you live.

There is also the matter of military spending, a large part of the federal budget. As Pew notes, military spending is spread unevenly across the states. That is as much through accident of history—where bases are located—than because of any twenty-first-century military need.

But the confusion goes even beyond that. Many of our military bases are located overseas. On all bases and ships, the men and women serving are from states and territories around the country. Does a Marine in Guam have his paycheck attributed to that territory, or to his home state? Doesn’t defense spending benefit all Americans, no matter where the check is cashed? What does the location matter?

It matters only in so far as the politicians and pundits who cite these statistics do so in an effort to divide us. The idea of a Blue America and a Red America is a dangerous one, but it is a tempting weapon to yield for a politician who wants to rally his base. State governments like California’s use these figures to justify their own righteousness and demand that, as net “donors” to the American republic, they be given more deference, and more power. (Even in that chart, note that the top donor state is red and the top recipient is blue).

This is a common refrain from the rich to the poor throughout history: they pay for something, so they must be allowed to control it, and to control the people that receive it. Indeed, that it is so consistently demanded shows why massive spending is incompatible with a free people. As long as other people pay for you to survive, they will demand to control how you live.

Politicians love to use fuzzy statistics like these to do so, and will always find an audience for their claims. As our government continues to expand in scope and size, we should consider this another reason to resist.
Kyle Sammin is a lawyer and writer from Pennsylvania. Read some of his other writing at kylesammin.com, or follow him on Twitter @KyleSammin.

Have I ever been wrong? on a regular basis

Have I ever used the word "rant?" I don't keep track

:D

Sound logic. It's like, we're already screwed so let's just make the problem worse.

Wasn't an exercise in logic. I asked you three questions. If this is your answer, it sounds as if you prefer to stay screwed. And there is a dispute about whether the tax proposal will "make the problem worse" or make a less of a problem.

Corporations today on average are not over taxed. How about you apply revenue to things that will make the country stronger like infrastructure, research, education and debt reduction.

What standard are you applying? "On average," even if that were true, means that half are overtaxed, or that half the countries tax less. Either is a problem that can be fixed by taxing less.

And how about applying the taxes with which you seem to think are now adequate (or do you want them to be higher?) to pay for those things you listed? How much of the "stimulus" went to infrastructure as was promised? Why is the federal government funding education? When does the federal government, now or ever since Coolidge, apply revenue to debt reduction in a meaningful way except to just pay the interest on the debt?

And doesn't making the private sector "stronger" make the country stronger? Well, no, not in a Progressive structure.

if you're so confident in the tax proposals promoting long-term growth wouldn't you bring the economists before congress to participate in a bi-partisan discussion?

Crickets.

Bring your tax proposal before Congress in a bi-partisan discussion? That would be the surest way to trash it. The opposition party, in our time, is diametrically opposed to the other. Each party scrambles to get enough of a majority so that it can ram its agenda through without the squelching charade of a bi-partisan "discussion." Get serious.

Anyway, as it is, the GOP keeps caving, due to partisan pressures, on its initial proposals. I really liked the original idea of a 15% corporate tax rate, or less. Was very disappointed when that figure went up.

Bring your tax proposal before Congress in a bi-partisan discussion?



yup..I like the Pelosi legislative method..."you need to pass it to find out what's in it"....or John Kerry " I'll tell you my plan to fix everything if you elect me first"

Fun facts : what economist think about the GOP tax plan

Fun facts : what economist think about the GOP tax plan
Clearly they only asked liberal economists.

And there is a dispute about whether the tax proposal will "make the problem worse" or make a less of a problem.
I have yet to see a single credible analysis that shows long-term growth. Everything is based on faith.

Anyway, as it is, the GOP keeps caving, due to partisan pressures, on its initial proposals. I really liked the original idea of a 15% corporate tax rate, or less. Was very disappointed when that figure went up.
Yes, let's borrow even more money to fund the elite. Feed the sparrows by feeding the horses right?

"economists" are wrong more often than Spence...and that's a LOT!

I love the example produced to indicate the science behind the sentiment. Too much turkey also?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have yet to see a single credible analysis (You should have stopped here. Economic forecasts are notoriously unreliable.)

that shows long-term growth. Everything is based on faith.

It's based on historical evidence. Cutting taxes, especially on the private business sector, has led to economic growth, which created a rise in jobs and income.

Yes, let's borrow even more money to fund the elite. Feed the sparrows by feeding the horses right?

It's not about sparrows and horses. They don't have the ability to generate wealth. They don't have individual entrepreneurs. They don't have a distributive tax system, nor a government which spends more than it has. They operate under a herd instinct in which individual freedom does not exist. They don't borrow money nor have an elaborate welfare system in which half the herd can exist without expending labor and so be fed and cared for by the other half.

It's about either expending labor to feed a dominating over-structure with more than half of the money created by the entrepreneurs which can then be redistributed in ways that ensure its domination. Or about reducing the feed of the over-structure, and limiting its ability to dominate a much freer society of individuals.

It's based on historical evidence. Cutting taxes, especially on the private business sector, has led to economic growth, which created a rise in jobs and income..

Bingo.

Spence, you work in finance in some capacity, yes? I know I struggle to come to terms with that, but I believe it's true?

What happened to the economy, after Clinton/Gingrich slashed taxes? Please remind us?

Cutting taxes doesn't always work (didn't work in Kansas). Increasing taxes doesn't always work (CT is on the brink of insolvency).

It's based on historical evidence. Cutting taxes, especially on the private business sector, has led to economic growth, which created a rise in jobs and income.
There is no explicit correlation between cutting taxes and growth. It is a myth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo.

Spence, you work in finance in some capacity, yes? I know I struggle to come to terms with that, but I believe it's true?

What happened to the economy, after Clinton/Gingrich slashed taxes? Please remind us?

Cutting taxes doesn't always work (didn't work in Kansas). Increasing taxes doesn't always work (CT is on the brink of insolvency).

I believe he is a snake oil salesman of sorts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is no explicit correlation between cutting taxes and growth. It is a myth.





Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/gop-tax-rate-cut-wealthy/


The Congressional Research Service published a paper in 2012 that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth. Congressional Republicans protested the findings, and the service briefly withdrew the paper.

Republicans argued that the CRS paper had methodological errors, namely that it didn't account for the long-term benefits of tax rate cuts. The paper looked only at effects on growth within the first year of the cuts.

POLITICO looked at each time the country changed the top income tax rate and the following five years of GDP per capita growth rate. The results are similar to the CRS findings: changing the top income tax rate does not have a predictable effect on economic growth.

Higher taxes equate to higher economic growth due to companies looking to achieve maximum deductions to lower their taxes by means of hiring more employees or more expenses. Lower taxes equal higher profits. It ends there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/gop-tax-rate-cut-wealthy/


The Congressional Research Service published a paper in 2012 that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth. Congressional Republicans protested the findings, and the service briefly withdrew the paper.

Republicans argued that the CRS paper had methodological errors, namely that it didn't account for the long-term benefits of tax rate cuts. The paper looked only at effects on growth within the first year of the cuts.

POLITICO looked at each time the country changed the top income tax rate and the following five years of GDP per capita growth rate. The results are similar to the CRS findings: changing the top income tax rate does not have a predictable effect on economic growth.

Obama referred to published federal studies, which said that Obamacare would save each family $2,500. Maybe tomorrow, they'll publish a paper saying the earth is flat. I'm not impressed.

If Hilary had won, and she was proposing tax cuts, Spence would be all for it.

As long as the feds have enough to do the things they are supposed to do, it cannot be a bad thing to take no more.

Tax cuts can be followed by a recession (or growth), it doesn't mean the cuts caused the recession (or growth). There's too any moving pieces. But who here, chooses to pay more taxes than we have to?

Being slightly above middle class here in CT, I presume I'll be paying more since I can no longer deduct my asinine CT taxes. If poorer people are helped by doubling the standard deduction, and businesses are helped by slashing the corporate tax rate, I'll take it.

I'd like to see businesses keep more of their income (and this become instantly more valuable), I'd like to see some of the money parked overseas come back here, and for sure I'd like to see people below the middle, (1) keep more of their income, and (2) have better potential for wage increases. I don't know if this plan does that, neither does anyone else.

I remember the good old days when the Repub. said deficit matters. Now, not so much.

Hypocrites.

Higher taxes equate to higher economic growth due to companies looking to achieve maximum deductions to lower their taxes by means of hiring more employees or more expenses. Lower taxes equal higher profits. It ends there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Higher taxes equate to higher economic growth"

Oh my, yes. Which explains the surging economy in high-tax places like Connecticut, Venezuala, Cuba, and the Soviet Union.

"Lower taxes equal higher profits. It ends there"

Wrong. This is economic illiteracy at its absolute zenith. It only "ends there", if the business owners bury that profit in their backyards and leave it there, or I guess if they burn it. Nebe, is that what you do with your profits? I bet it isn't. And if you either (1) spend that profit to buy things, (2) invest that profit to grow, (3) put it in the bank and save it, or (4) invest it in the stock market, or (5) give some of it to charity...if you do ANY of those things, the profit most certainly does not "end there", it gets re-circulated and helps the economy.

I remember the good old days when the Repub. said deficit matters. Now, not so much.

Hypocrites.

Now, that is true. But, lower taxes, by themselves, don't always increase deficits. Because they can be stimulative. Don't you live in CT? We raised taxes one too many times, and tax revenue collected dropped by 450 million, because it was restrictive, people finally had enough. Tax revenue collected, often does not move in proportion with tax rates levied. There are way too many moving pieces. If revenue always moved in lockstep with price, a Honda dealer could get rich by charging $100,000 for a Civic. Supply and demand gets in the way of that.

What thoughtful people should be advocating for, is what Clinton/Gingrich did. Cut taxes in a way that is stimulative, and cut wasteful spending. It worked when they did it, it worked like a charm. How come no one remembers that?

What thoughtful people should be advocating for, is what Clinton/Gingrich did. Cut taxes in a way that is stimulative, and cut wasteful spending. It worked when they did it, it worked like a charm. How come no one remembers that?
Shhhhhhh, Jim...come here. Quietly please. Here, crouch down. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Do not tell anyone. Here's the deal. The Clinton tax cuts and growth that followed...was during the dot.com bubble. I know. Really.

Shhhhhhh, Jim. ...come here. Quietly please. Here, crouch down. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Do not tell anyone. Here's the deal. The Clinton tax cuts and growth that followed...was during the dot.com bubble. I know. Really.

Maybe they helped fuel the dot-com bubble,by making it cheaper and more attractive, to take risk on new technologies and products? Maybe they made that surge better than it would have been, without it? Way too many moving pieces.

The growth during the Clinton and Bush years, was unlike anything my generation has seen. I'm not sure you've shot down my proposition that it might be a good idea to replicate that. Today, there are lots of technology and green energy ideas on the verge of taking off. Maybe tax cuts could help spur that along. Maybe it's worth a try. Anyone who claims to know that it can't work, is blinded buy ideology. If the Democrats were proposing this, everyone here knows you'd be cheerleading for it.

Maybe they helped fuel the dot-com bubble,by making it cheaper and more attractive, to take risk on new technologies and products? Maybe they made that surge better than it would have been, without it? Way too many moving pieces.
Maybe it made the bubble worse because many saw the opportunity for greater profit? Who the hell knows, but what's certain is that the tax cuts didn't cause the growth, new technologies born from government funded programs did.

Maybe it made the bubble worse because many saw the opportunity for greater profit? Who the hell knows, but what's certain is that the tax cuts didn't cause the growth, new technologies born from government funded programs did.

Tax cuts can give business more capital to invest in or use new technologies regardless of where those technologies were born. And government funding is not government creating. God help us if we are going to depend on government tax collection and control to develop technology, business, culture, and the well-being of society. You seem to be all in for socialism. That's OK, but don't pose as some supporter of a free market system.

Here are two articles that analyze things a bit differently than you:

http://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/why-taxes-affect-economic-growth

https://www.thoughtco.com/effect-of-income-taxes-on-economic-growth-1146370

Tax cuts can give business more capital to invest in or use new technologies regardless of where those technologies were born.
But that's the rub. Big corporations in general have excess cash they're unwilling to invest because they don't see a return. For many sectors capital investment goes to automation which further reduces the need for employment.

Of the articles you linked, the heritage piece is just standard conservative philosophy but doesn't take in the complexities of our current situation. We have massive debt, a crumbling infrastructure, an evolving global economy etc... What is the impact of increased leverage in terms of debt service and inflation? Hello???

The other one is more just reform minded but doesn't even support your argument for the most part. I'm not against reform, that's not what is really being proposed right now though.

Spence, you work in finance in some capacity, yes? I know I struggle to come to terms with that, but I believe it's true?

I work primarily with Fortune 500 manufacturing executives to help them understand how capital investments in technology can best drive innovation and operational excellence.

Front row seat.

I work primarily with Fortune 500 manufacturing executives to help them understand how capital investments in technology can best drive innovation and operational excellence.

Front row seat.

So what do you tell them, to turn over operations to the masses and to raise minimum wage? Everything you must tell them, spurs in the face if everything you profess to believe here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe it made the bubble worse because many saw the opportunity for greater profit? Who the hell knows, but what's certain is that the tax cuts didn't cause the growth, new technologies born from government funded programs did.

But lower taxes, changed the math behind the cost benefit analysis, that is undertaken whenever a new technology is being considered. Me thinks your front row seat has an obstructed view.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But that's the rub. Big corporations in general have excess cash they're unwilling to invest because they don't see a return.

"Excess" cash that is held rather than invested for expansion, will lose value to inflation. But if it goes to bonuses or raises in salaries or stock dividends (providing that the business sold stocks), the bonuses and raises and dividends will either be invested or used to buy things, all of which fuels the economy. However, raising salaries with government fiat money can lead to higher salaries than profitable when the fiat money runs out if there is no actual growth in productivity and profit.

For many sectors capital investment goes to automation which further reduces the need for employment.

In a previous post you said that "new technologies born from government funded programs" caused growth. Now you're saying that much investment goes to "automation," which would be a new technology related to a companies production, and that it reduces the need for employment. Which, I assume, is a negative impact on economic growth. But, somehow, if the technology is "born" from a government funded program, then it will grow the economy. Which implies that private investment in new technologies does not grow the economy, or even shrinks it, but government investment in technology will grow the economy.

In total, you seem to be saying that either business will sit on excess cash which loses value due to inflation, or invests in automation which reduces the work force therefor shrinking the economy, or, somehow, if the government provides fiat cash, it will grow the economy, or if government "invests" in technology it will grow the economy, but private investment in technology is either ineffective or will shrink the economy.

Very complex, and confusing.

Of the articles you linked, the heritage piece is just standard conservative philosophy but doesn't take in the complexities of our current situation.

Your assertions are just the standard Progressive philosophy. As I have said, there are conflicting thoughts and analyses re economics and economic forecasts. Not just what you consider uncontested, universally agreed to theories or forecasts.

Progressive economics requires a complex, abstruse theory (exemplified by the complex mess of your above assertions) to justify spending more than the revenue collected, and the necessity to borrow in unlimited fashion in order to fund the Progressive model of government which controls and defines the shape and content of the societal order. All of which requires government command of the economy and ultimately requires government funding of the economy.

Until that ultimate model is in place, programs must incrementally be added in the move toward the desired government command. And, while the private market still funds the government via taxation, Progressive economic theory has to constantly adjust and increase taxation to pay for those programs in ways that give the illusion that they are adequately funded. And those programs require ever new regulations. All of which create new "crises" that must be responded to with even more regulations. Which, in turn, compounds the complexity of the taxing bureaucracy's codes and rates in order pay for new regs and programs and still maintain the appearance of favoring the majority of voters. And thus it can continue to expand the private sector's and its people's dependence on government and its regulations . . . and continue the increasingly complex tax system required to give the appearance of funding that growth.

We have massive debt,

It wasn't "conservative" economic philosophy that created that massive debt. It was various forms of Keynesian economics that created it.

a crumbling infrastructure, an evolving global economy etc... What is the impact of increased leverage in terms of debt service and inflation? Hello???

Infrastructure is addressed in the articles I linked to. "Conservative" economics is in favor of infrastructure. I am not sure that Progressive economics requires anything other than whatever government wishes at any given time. What happened to the promised spending on infrastructure in the Progressive stimulus bill. We are still waiting for it.

"Conservative" economics is all for debt "service" (reduction). Progressive economics constantly increases debt to expand government power. Inflation is necessary to help even paying for the interest on the debt in order to avoid default. But actually paying down debt is of no concern to Progressives.

The other one is more just reform minded but doesn't even support your argument for the most part. I'm not against reform, that's not what is really being proposed right now though.

I didn't intend to link to that one. As you say, it doesn't speak to anything now . . . or ever, since the reform it specifies ain't gonna happen no matter who is in power.

The one I intended to link to was this one (I replaced the wrong one with this in my previous post):

https://www.thoughtco.com/effect-of-income-taxes-on-economic-growth-1146370

This article reduces "conservative" economic policy to the basic requirements to which taxes should be addressed and for which government should spend. When government is restricted to its constitutionally required basics, tax policies don't have to be obscure, complex beyond readability, as Progressive tax codes must be in order to give the illusion of fairness.

Progressive economic theory requires a complex, abstruse theory (exemplified by the complex mess of your above assertions)



yup...the Progressive city council(unanimous) and the mayor plan to argue before the Supreme Court that personal income is not personal property....this should be good :huh:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattles-income-tax-on-the-wealthy-is-illegal-judge-rules/

“In order to uphold its income tax, the city would have to convince a court that individual income is not protected by the constitution.”

At the Supreme Court, Seattle officials hope to attack the long-standing interpretation that income taxes are property taxes.

yup...the Progressive city council(unanimous) and the mayor plan to argue before the Supreme Court that personal income is not personal property....this should be good :huh:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattles-income-tax-on-the-wealthy-is-illegal-judge-rules/

“In order to uphold its income tax, the city would have to convince a court that individual income is not protected by the constitution.”

At the Supreme Court, Seattle officials hope to attack the long-standing interpretation that income taxes are property taxes.

What your regressive mindset fails to process, is that high income individuals, only achieve that income thanks to everyone else- public teachers, libraries, public roads, police, etc. as senator warren proclaimed, if you have a business, YOU didn’t build it. YOU had help. YOU have to spread the wealth around to those who made your success possible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What your regressive mindset fails to process, is that high income individuals, only achieve that income thanks to everyone else- public teachers, libraries, public roads, police, etc. as senator warren proclaimed, if you have a business, YOU didn’t build it. YOU had help. YOU have to spread the wealth around to those who made your success possible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Are you ok?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you ok?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In a previous post you said that "new technologies born from government funded programs" caused growth. Now you're saying that much investment goes to "automation," which would be a new technology related to a companies production, and that it reduces the need for employment. Which, I assume, is a negative impact on economic growth. But, somehow, if the technology is "born" from a government funded program, then it will grow the economy. Which implies that private investment in new technologies does not grow the economy, or even shrinks it, but government investment in technology will grow the economy.

In total, you seem to be saying that either business will sit on excess cash which loses value due to inflation, or invests in automation which reduces the work force therefor shrinking the economy, or, somehow, if the government provides fiat cash, it will grow the economy, or if government "invests" in technology it will grow the economy, but private investment in technology is either ineffective or will shrink the economy.

Very complex, and confusing.
I think you're making it complex and confusing, just like this new GOP tax plan. Now you can set up 529s for the unborn? This is the simplification that was touted?

A lot of private sector growth the past century has been led by government funding. That doesn't mean it all is, certainly business funds their own innovation programs to some degree.

From what I've seen though the real growth is most likely to occur when risks are taken that lead to really new ideas. These often aren't see as the most profitable or if really disruptive totally absurd. It's hard to automate something you've never done before so there's a surge of energy required to bring it to life. That creates growth.

A lot of business today is totally stale though, they look to be more efficient and minimize risks until the point at which they are obsolete. They don't do this what for a lack of capital -- many are still very profitable -- they do it as a matter of culture and a really big problem their religious adherence to the virtue of shareholder value.

But, this still remains the bulk of the corporate sector. If you want to spur growth just routing cash disproportionately to non-managerial shareholders doesn't seem like an effective place to put it. To do so at the expense of additional debt and inflation is even further counter productive.

This is a money grab plain and simple.

I don’t think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Me? I'm great.

Here is the speech I was referring to, by Princess Lies Through Her Teeth.

Nebe, did you know that you didn't build your business? At least, not according to Princess Spreading Bull. Me think-um she want-um live in teepee of Great White Chief. Ugh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AMoBU7lFUA

From what I've seen though the real growth is most likely to occur when risks are taken that lead to really new ideas. .

Ding ding ding! Give that man a cigar!

Now Spence, take it one step further...when corporate taxes are decreased, does that make risk-taking more attractive, or less attractive, than when corporate taxes are higher?

Corporate income taxes are the cost of income. And page 1 of every undergraduate economics text says that when you decrease the cost of something, the demand for that something (no matter what it is), goes up. And the opposite is true when you increase the cost of something.

Now Spence, take it one step further...when corporate taxes are decreased, does that make risk-taking more attractive, or less attractive, than when corporate taxes are higher?
Did you read my post? It's all there.

Did you read my post? It's all there.

Oh, I did. I've also read Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. Similarly useful.

Nebe, did you know that you didn't build your business? At least, not according to Princess Spreading Bull. Me think-um she want-um live in teepee of Great White Chief. Ugh!

That's not what she said at all. Also, you're Native mockery is pretty pale.

That's not what she said at all. Also, you're Native mockery is pretty pale.

Watch the video, don’t take my word for it. Naked contempt for the successful.

If I am making fun of someone who lied about being Native American for personal gain, I can make a compelling case that I care a lot more about native Americans than she does.

As for warrens idiotic remarks. Yes, we all drive on public roads and use public police. But only Mark Zuckerberg invented Facebook, only bill gates invented Windows. The individual, therefore, has an awful lot to do with it, and should therefore be encouraged to take risks. Not demonized.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you're Native mockery is pretty pale faced.



fixed it

[QUOTE=spence;1132382]

certainly business funds their own innovation programs to some degree./QUOTE]



genius

That's not what she said at all. Also, you're Native mockery is pretty pale.

But it doesn’t bother you one bit when Warren disrespects Native Americans. So your outrage at those who disrespect native Americans is quite selective. Which means, your outrage is fake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1132382]

certainly business funds their own innovation programs to some degree./QUOTE]



genius

I don’t get it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Watch the video, don’t take my word for it. Naked contempt for the successful.

If I am making fun of someone who lied about being Native American for personal gain, I can make a compelling case that I care a lot more about native Americans than she does.

As for warrens idiotic remarks. Yes, we all drive on public roads and use public police. But only Mark Zuckerberg invented Facebook, only bill gates invented Windows. The individual, therefore, has an awful lot to do with it, and should therefore be encouraged to take risks. Not demonized.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Warren is right when she gives credit to the entrepreneur for creating a business. But she is wrong when she says that the business uses infrastructure, etc. that the REST OF US paid for. No, it is not just the rest of us, but ALL of us, including the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur also pays taxes that pay for infrastructure, etc. The business builder does not ride on the backs of those who build infrastructure. He rides along with them and is entitled every bit as much to use that infrastructure to build a business or not. He does not get a gift by the REST of society. He is part of society.

And that entrepreneur, while using his rightful share of the infrastructure, gives the gift of his hard work to create wealth and jobs for ALL of us, not just himself.

Warren does not give the business maker credit for contributing (probably even more so than the REST of us) to the economic well being of society, rather she warns him that, yeah, go ahead and keep some of the money he's earned, but he owes the rest of it to us for the groundwork that made it possible. As if the entrepreneur, by building a business, has not already given more to the economic well being of society than the REST of us.

She is wrong. The entrepreneur did create a business on his or her own. We all pay for the infrastructure. And we all use it in our own way. And when we use it to work or to play or to learn or to build, however we use it is entirely up to us. We are all entirely responsible for how we use the various public roads that we all helped to build.

There is no explicit correlation between cutting taxes and growth. It is a myth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Depends on which "study" you prefer to believe. Most studies don't find an "explicit" correlation between taxes and growth regardless if whether or not taxes are raised or lowered. So "explicit" correlation is not a useful metric.

You may argue that other factors contributed to, or were the reason for, growth when the taxes were also lowered. But those other reasons were not a result of "explicit" correlation because they, too, were also historically in play when growth did not occur or happened less robustly. But the four times there was a significant lowering of federal business taxes there was significant economic growth.

Various "studies" show that lowering corporate tax rates have a greater impact on creating growth than lowering income or consumption or property tax rates. Other studies disagree. Again, when it was tried at the federal level, it created growth, and "other" factors were not consistently present in each case. That may not be an "explicit" correlation, it may be and "implicit" correlation, or just a correlation. But a consistent one.

Also, when I refer to "conservative" economic theory (basically updated classical economics), I'm not referring to Republican policies. Many Republican tax proposals are a mix of some "conservative" (classical) and some, often a lot, of Progressive ideas. As we are witnessing now, the Republican tax plan has been morphing, along the way to finalization, from a more "conservative" plan to an equally or more Progressive one as the planners keep caving in to political pressure.

Here is an article by the Tax Foundation supporting the theory that lowering taxes, especially corporate taxes, promotes growth:

https://taxfoundation.org/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth

Also, the article that I previously posted, which gives a good foundation on which type of programs government should and must spend tax revenue, should be read if you didn't already do so:
https://www.thoughtco.com/effect-of-income-taxes-on-economic-growth-1146370

Other articles disagree--but by theoretical or conjectural, not "explicit," reasoning. One of the most empirical reasons for disagreement is not necessarily that lowering tax rates does or doesn't generate economic growth, but that it grows income inequality. But, again, there isn't necessarily an "explicit" correlation between income inequality and economic growth, because "other" factors can always be pointed to as causation.

I think you're making it complex and confusing,

You did that with your contradictions. And the Progressives do it by ramming their square peg spending into their tax funded revenue hole. They never shave the edges of their spending, they just artificially widen the revenue hole. So they have to keep trying to raise taxes on corporations and the rich to get revenue while making it appear that they are sparing or "helping" the so-called "middle class." But there isn't enough money in the pockets of business or rich folks to fund all their government expanding programs so they have to, quietly, "borrow" enough so they can at bare minimum, in order to hide the wealth they steal from us, to pay the monthly interest on the debt. But, like the spending addict or illegal gambling junky, never any payment on the debt capital.

So the debt keeps getting larger and keeps becoming a bigger drag on economic growth by pouring the nation's capital into the widening sewer hole of debt to the federal reserve or to China or to other foreign nations and to individual suckers who want to invest into the illusory "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government--all of whose collected interest payments from the government have lost value to government monetized inflation.

So, in reality, the middle class is "helped" to shrink or lose upward mobility, and the lower class is "helped" to expand and stay in place.

The process is obfuscatory, not transparent. It is obviously a slight of hand economic piece of magic meant to confuse us into believing that our life is made better. And it makes it more difficult, and progressively more impossible, for the private sector to bring back the middle class, and restore individual economic mobility as it is meant to do, and is capable, if let free, of doing.

just like this new GOP tax plan. Now you can set up 529s for the unborn? This is the simplification that was touted?

The original simplicity is being destroyed, as I pointed out before, by the cascade of cowardly concessions to political pressure.

A lot of private sector growth the past century has been led by government funding. That doesn't mean it all is, certainly business funds their own innovation programs to some degree.

That "lot of" is too vague to give us a clear picture (that unclear, confusing, obfuscatory lingo stuff). Is there also a lot of failure in the private sector led by government funding? Is the government preferable to private banks as a funder? Is it better to risk our tax dollars than those of the banks? Does the government take more risks than banks do? Is it economically and politically wise for the US government to be a bank, or to replace private banks? Does it distort, or erode, the relation of citizen to government in our constitutional system? Does it give the government more power to create winners and losers? Is it one of those ways of expanding the government's regulatory power over the marketplace? And a lot more relevant questions.

From what I've seen though the real growth is most likely to occur when risks are taken that lead to really new ideas. These often aren't see as the most profitable or if really disruptive totally absurd. It's hard to automate something you've never done before so there's a surge of energy required to bring it to life. That creates growth.

That requires more freedom and less taxes and regulations.

A lot of business today is totally stale though, they look to be more efficient and minimize risks until the point at which they are obsolete. They don't do this what for a lack of capital -- many are still very profitable -- they do it as a matter of culture and a really big problem their religious adherence to the virtue of shareholder value.

Sounds like the familiar, rather natural, pattern of birth, to maturity, to senescence, to death. Hard to shrug off. Very rare for any life form to escape. Probably good that it is so. Leaves space for the next generation, the truly new, the competitive battle, the free market.

But, this still remains the bulk of the corporate sector. If you want to spur growth just routing cash disproportionately to non-managerial shareholders doesn't seem like an effective place to put it. To do so at the expense of additional debt and inflation is even further counter productive.

Is there a lesson for government there about additional debt and inflation?

This is a money grab plain and simple.

That's a pejorative way of putting it. I resent how you characterize the fact that it will help me, at tax time, to grab back a good sum more of the money that the government took from me.

This is a money grab plain and simple.

and there you have it...

raising taxes is not a "money grab".....celebrate!

lowering taxes is a "money grab"...and...deplorable

that's some pretty screwed up thinking...

oooh...here's more from Progressive Seattle

"They(city council) also claimed that the city has a right to tax people on the privilege of living in Seattle proper because city of residence is elective."

“Where you choose to live is a voluntary choice and you make that choice based on what the benefits are to that choice and also the detriment, whatever the tax consequences (constitutional or not) are to making that choice,” said Paul Lawrence, an attorney for the city, during the hearing. “If they don’t like the tax consequences that Seattle has chosen to do, an (unconstitutional)income tax, they can move to Bellevue.”

“We’re here to tax the rich,” proclaimed councilmember Kshama Sawant, the bill’s sponsor.

Then-mayor Ed Murray said that his “progressive city” had hit upon “a new formula for fairness.” (Murray resigned after the fifth allegation of child-sex abuse, was lodged against him).

Murray explained that he planned to use the revenue generated by the tax to lower other taxes. :kewl:




great... more funding for these morons :hihi:

and there you have it...

raising taxes is not a "money grab".....celebrate!

lowering taxes is a "money grab"...and...deplorable

that's some pretty screwed up thinking...

oooh...here's more from Progressive Seattle

"They(city council) also claimed that the city has a right to tax people on the privilege of living in Seattle proper because city of residence is elective."

“Where you choose to live is a voluntary choice and you make that choice based on what the benefits are to that choice and also the detriment, whatever the tax consequences (constitutional or not) are to making that choice,” said Paul Lawrence, an attorney for the city, during the hearing. “If they don’t like the tax consequences that Seattle has chosen to do, an (unconstitutional)income tax, they can move to Bellevue.”

“We’re here to tax the rich,” proclaimed councilmember Kshama Sawant, the bill’s sponsor.

Then-mayor Ed Murray said that his “progressive city” had hit upon “a new formula for fairness.” (Murray resigned after the fifth allegation of child-sex abuse, was lodged against him).

Murray explained that he planned to use the revenue generated by the tax to lower other taxes. :kewl:




great... more funding for these morons :hihi:

You can't make this stuff up.

If the current tax set up is so horrible for companies why are they making record profits ? History has shown us big buiness can not be trusted .. whether it's labor laws of workers safety or the environment, so the likelyhood that any of this tax money will ever land in the pockets of their workers or be used for expansion is as laughably just like the administration thinking a 1000.00 tax break is going to change he lives of The middle class

If the current tax set up is so horrible for companies why are they making record profits ? History has shown us big buiness can not be trusted .. whether it's labor laws of workers safety or the environment, so the likelyhood that any of this tax money will ever land in the pockets of their workers or be used for expansion is as laughably just like the administration thinking a 1000.00 tax break is going to change he lives of The middle class

Everything you've said here is false, or a gross exaggeration, or a political spin.

If the current tax set up is so horrible for companies why are they making record profits ? History has shown us big buiness can not be trusted .. whether it's labor laws of workers safety or the environment, so the likelyhood that any of this tax money will ever land in the pockets of their workers or be used for expansion is as laughably just like the administration thinking a 1000.00 tax break is going to change he lives of The middle class

Who said the current system is 'horrible'? But it can be better.

"History has shown us big buiness can not be trusted"

I have worked for huge companies - Aetna, Travelers, The Hartford. All good places to work, providing tens of thousands of good jobs. And all did good work in their communities. You have no idea what you are talking about. None. Of course some businesses are owned by awful people. But we have all kinds of laws that limit what they can and cannot do.

"so the likelyhood that any of this tax money will ever land in the pockets of their workers or be used for expansion is as laughably"

So tell us, mister business expert, where will the money go? Is any of it going to go to the shareholders, many of whom are not rich?

Even if all of the extra profits go to the CEO, what do you think he does with that money? Unless he buries it in his backyard, he uses it in a way that helps the economy.

What about the thousands and thousands of small businesses? Nebe has said it would help him if he got to keep more of his income...Is he an evil plutocrat?

Nebe has said it would help him if he got to keep more of his income...Is he an evil plutocrat?



he's definitely an evil something or other...:devil2:

what Wayne is saying is he trusts Trump and the Republican Senate and Congress to spend the money more wisely than America's evil, corrupt business Crooketeers.....I think in Seattle they were planning to also use the extra tax money to fund gender fluidity programs/seminars for the City's kindergartens(ok, I made that up...but it's entirely believable)

he's definitely an evil something or other...:devil2:

what Wayne is saying is he trusts Trump and the Republican Senate and Congress to spend the money more wisely than America's evil, corrupt business Crooketeers.....I think in Seattle they were planning to also use the extra tax money to fund gender fluidity programs/seminars for the City's kindergartens(ok, I made that up...but it's entirely believable)

What I am saying if the car just needs tires why is the GOP looking at buying a new car and telling Americans were just getting new tires ?

What I am saying if the car just needs tires why is the GOP looking at buying a new car and telling Americans were just getting new tires ?

If the car needs tires, why not get better tires for less money?

I like that. Comparing taxes to tires. Good one.

If the car needs tires, why not get better tires for less money?

I like that. Comparing taxes to tires. Good one.

Like a tax return on a post card:cheers2:

Like a tax return on a post card:cheers2:

OK . . . now comparing tires to postcards . . . falling a little bit off the edge here.

"In 2019, those making less than $25,000 would get an average $50 tax reduction, or 0.3 percent of their after-tax income. Middle-income earners would get average cuts of $850, while people making at least $746,000 would get average cuts of $34,000, or 2.2 percent of income.
The center also said the Senate proposal would generate enough economic growth to produce additional revenue of $169 billion over a decade. That's far short of closing the near $1.5 trillion in red ink that Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated the bill would produce over that period."

"In 2019, those making less than $25,000 would get an average $50 tax reduction, or 0.3 percent of their after-tax income. Middle-income earners would get average cuts of $850, while people making at least $746,000 would get average cuts of $34,000, or 2.2 percent of income.
The center also said the Senate proposal would generate enough economic growth to produce additional revenue of $169 billion over a decade. That's far short of closing the near $1.5 trillion in red ink that Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated the bill would produce over that period."

"Middle-income earners would get average cuts of $850"

Is that not a good thing?

"The center also said the Senate proposal would generate enough economic growth to produce additional revenue of $169 billion over a decade. That's far short of closing the near $1.5 trillion in red ink that Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated the bill would produce over that period."

And some other think tank said that Obamacare would save the average family $2,500 a year. Who believes these people?

But we need to cut wasteful spending to pay for this, no doubt.

Unemployment is down to a very low number. That has to have a positive impact, it cannot fail to do so.

The rich have more money invested in places to take advantage of things like this. When the stock market goes up, that will always help the rich more than it helps everyone else. It's not exactly "fair" or equitable, but it's not a bad thing, either.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors

So there appears to be few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy, the independent congressional analysis says it's going to add to the deficit, the Treasury department may have lied about it's analysis and CEO's plan to use the windfall to benefit shareholders.

What a victory for the Republicans.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/trump-s-tax-promises-undercut-by-ceo-plans-to-reward-investors

So there appears to be few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy, the independent congressional analysis says it's going to add to the deficit, the Treasury department may have lied about it's analysis and CEO's plan to use the windfall to benefit shareholders.

What a victory for the Republicans.

"appears to be few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy"

when you poll Marxists only, that's probably true. I wonder what those same economists said about the Clinton/Gingrich tax cuts.

Spence, tell me where this statement is wrong, please...

Corporate income taxes are the cost of corporate income. When the cost of income decreases, the demand for income will increase. Some corporate projects might not make economic sense to undertake at a tax rate of 35%, but would make perfect sense at a tax rate of 20%.

Finally, returning some income to the owners of the company as dividends, doesn't help the economy? Unless they bury that money in their yards or burn it, they will use it in ways that cannot fail to help the economy.

"few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy"

Finally, there is this...just the talk about the possibility of tax cuts, has helped push the stock market up. That hasn't helped the economy? Really?

What a victory for the Republicans.

December 2, 2017 1:54 AM

The Senate version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act just passed, 51 to 49, on a party line vote.

"appears to be few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy" ( find the 1 guy guy who agrees with you out the thousands who dont just like climate change and use them to suport your factless argument
change )

when you poll Marxists only, that's probably true. (shows your bias against facts ) I wonder what those same economists said about the Clinton/Gingrich tax cuts. ( you love for living in the past )

Spence, tell me where this statement is wrong, please...

Corporate income taxes are the cost of corporate income. When the cost of income decreases, the demand for income will increase. Some corporate projects might not make economic sense to undertake at a tax rate of 35%, but would make perfect sense at a tax rate of 20%.

Finally, returning some income to the owners of the company as dividends, doesn't help the economy? Unless they bury that money in their yards or burn it, they will use it in ways that cannot fail to help the economy.(these companys are all ready flush with cash your guess is just that a guess not based in any evidence that they do that now or will do so in the future

"few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy"

Finally, there is this...just the talk about the possibility of tax cuts, has helped push the stock market up. That hasn't helped the economy? Really?


Trump's tax plan, if it passes, will free up a little cash in the typical household's monthly budget. But the biggest winners are likely to be the wealthiest Americans, who are poised to save significantly .. just the estate tax supports this statement as Fact

Trump's tax plan, if it passes, will free up a little cash in the typical household's monthly budget. But the biggest winners are likely to be the wealthiest Americans, who are poised to save significantly .. just the estate tax supports this statement as Fact

"shows your bias against facts "

What 'facts'? The GOP has studies saying the poor will pay less, the Democrats have studies showing that everyone making less than $500,000 will be tortured to death. As usual. We'll see how it plays out, and if (like with Obamacare) it turns out that the supporting party was wrong about everything they promised, they will (and should) pay a political price.

"these companys are all ready flush with cash"

Some large companies are flush with cash, true. Many, many smaller companies are not.

Here on this forum, Nebe said that a reduction in corporate taxes would help his business and therefore him personally. Is he some heartless, right-wing plutocrat?

I'm a lot of things, not all of them good. I'm not a hypocrite, and I don't ignore facts that I don't find convenient.

"the biggest winners are likely to be the wealthiest Americans"

The wealthy have more of their money invested in things that take advantage of things like this. That's just how math works. It may not be fair or "equitable", but I'm not sure it's bad. They wealthy will use that money in ways that cannot fail to help the economy. Not even Spence can make that wrong, he doesn't even try.

Wdmso, here are some actual facts. The threshold below which no one pays any tax is almost doubled to 24,000. The standard deduction is doubled. The 15% tax bracket is reduced to a rate of 12%. And the corporate rate is reduced from 35 to 20. Despite what liberals like to claim, most businesses are not owned by the Waltons or the Koch brothers, and most who own businesses are not in the top 1%. I asked Nebe what this would mean to him. You won’t like his answer one bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump's tax plan, if it passes, will free up a little cash in the typical household's monthly budget. But the biggest winners are likely to be the wealthiest Americans, who are poised to save significantly .. just the estate tax supports this statement as Fact

you just stated the obvious then pounded the desk and yelled "that's a fact!"

we're constantly told that typical households have little or no savings and I was reading recently that credit card debt has soared again...sooo...typical households will probably welcome a little cash in the monthly budget

I'm not an expert but I believe the wealthiest Americans have the most money and probably the largest estates sooooo.....

I'm still trying to figure out how the poor are going to pay more...

you just stated the obvious then pounded the desk and yelled "that's a fact!"

we're constantly told that typical households have little or no savings and I was reading recently that credit card debt has soared again...sooo...typical households will probably welcome a little cash in the monthly budget

I'm not an expert but I believe the wealthiest Americans have the most money and probably the largest estates sooooo.....

I'm still trying to figure out how the poor are going to pay more...

It’s going to pass. If it hurts the middle class, the gop will fairly pay a price. If it helps the middle class, the democrats will pay a price.

I read this morning that the claims that the middle class will see a tax hike, are based on the assumption that these cuts will expire in ten years, so at that point the middle class would see a tax hike. A deranged assumption. Even if the cuts were temporary, temporary cuts are better than no cuts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Small businsses and family farms get the most from the estate tax repeal. It dosen't take much for a building, some land and cattle and some equipment to go over $6 million. How do you pass your farm or business to your family without having to sell a portion for taxes? I won't even get into the number of times the resources were taxed already.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Small businsses and family farms get the most from the estate tax repeal. It dosen't take much for a building, some land and cattle and some equipment to go over $6 million. How do you pass your farm or business to your family without having to sell a portion for taxes? I won't even get into the number of times the resources were taxed already.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Actually a professor from Iowa State studied this issue and couldn't find a single instance of a family losing their farm because of the estate tax in the past 40 years. It's just an urban myth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually a professor from Iowa State studied this issue and couldn't find a single instance of a family losing their farm because of the estate tax in the past 40 years. It's just an urban myth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's not what he wrote "How do you pass your farm or business to your family without having to sell a portion for taxes?"

Hahaha,a professor
No agenda there,move along
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, tell me where this statement is wrong, please...

Corporate income taxes are the cost of corporate income. When the cost of income decreases, the demand for income will increase. Some corporate projects might not make economic sense to undertake at a tax rate of 35%, but would make perfect sense at a tax rate of 20%.
The front half of your statement doesn't make any sense.

The back half makes some sense but it's more complicated than you state. In capital budgeting the tax rate is just one variable in the calculation. The net return is a factor of investments, anticipated benefits, taxes on profit (income less expenses) as well as the hurdle rate etc...

Dialing the corporate tax rate down isn't going to impact investments as much because if the projects are justified they would typically need to be justified by a wider margin than the difference in tax rates provide.

Small business could be different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The front half of your statement doesn't make any sense.

The back half makes some sense but it's more complicated than you state. In capital budgeting the tax rate is just one variable in the calculation. The net return is a factor of investments, anticipated benefits, taxes on profit (income less expenses) as well as the hurdle rate etc...

Dialing the corporate tax rate down isn't going to impact investments as much because if the projects are justified they would typically need to be justified by a wider margin than the difference in tax rates provide.

Small business could be different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's right....dazzle him with BS :kewl:

Hahaha,a professor
No agenda there,move along
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yeah, those agricultural professors are known to be big snowflakes after all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The front half of your statement doesn't make any sense.

The back half makes some sense but it's more complicated than you state. In capital budgeting the tax rate is just one variable in the calculation. The net return is a factor of investments, anticipated benefits, taxes on profit (income less expenses) as well as the hurdle rate etc...

Dialing the corporate tax rate down isn't going to impact investments as much because if the projects are justified they would typically need to be justified by a wider margin than the difference in tax rates provide.

Small business could be different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The front half of your statement doesn't make any sense. "

If a business makes a dollar of income, today they owe Uncle Sam 35 cents. Am I going too fast for you?

"In capital budgeting the tax rate is just one variable in the calculation"

Agreed. But the cost associated with that one variable, is set to decrease significantly. So all other things being equal, when doing a cost/benefit analysis, the cost is going to decrease. Which makes investments look more attractive. This cannot fail to occur.

The front half of your statement doesn't make any sense.

The back half makes some sense but it's more complicated than you state. In capital budgeting the tax rate is just one variable in the calculation. The net return is a factor of investments, anticipated benefits, taxes on profit (income less expenses) as well as the hurdle rate etc...

Dialing the corporate tax rate down isn't going to impact investments as much because if the projects are justified they would typically need to be justified by a wider margin than the difference in tax rates provide.

Small business could be different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Dialing the corporate tax rate down isn't going to impact investments as much because if the projects are justified they would typically need to be justified by a wider margin than the difference in tax rates provide"

Pure speculation on your part.

Cutting the corporate tax rate tilts the scales of the cost/benefit math. It doesn't make every single project now viable. But it makes more projects viable.

Corporations often look for a 15% return on any investments. Being able to keep 80% of income versus 65%, is not an insignificant shift.




"

Small business could be different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And what are most businesses? Small or large?

Yeah, those agricultural professors are known to be big snowflakes after all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jeff, pretty much ALL professors fall under the snowflake umbrella,but you know that. Sorry to distract from you acting silly again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If a business makes a dollar of income, today they owe Uncle Sam 35 cents. Am I going too fast for you?
Your wit is dizzying.

Agreed. But the cost associated with that one variable, is set to decrease significantly. So all other things being equal, when doing a cost/benefit analysis, the cost is going to decrease. Which makes investments look more attractive. This cannot fail to occur.
In simple terms, if you were to make a 10m capital investment that hoped to net 1.5m in profit, the proposed difference in marginal corporate taxes would be 2.25% of the total investment. That's not usually going to big enough to sway an investment decision given much larger factors. One reason is that the capital investment is risk adjusted using a hurdle rate which could be 19%. What kind of a return would you get if you just invested that 10m into bonds? This is usually subtracted and make the tax savings even less significant.

Note that the 35% rate is misleading. The effective average rate is closer to 20%...buy maintaining deductions that's even going to go way down which is why the deficit will explode.

The bottom line is that investment ideas are either good or bad. A good idea isn't going to be shelved because of a few percentage points...most companies either have the cash or can leverage given the low interest rates.

And what are most businesses? Small or large?
Depends on how do you define it. Yes, the vast majority of businesses in the US are small, for the most part they are non-employee, not incorporated and don't pay corporate taxes.

I'm not sure what is going to be in the final bill but earlier this month it was looking like the GOP wanted to increase taxes on most small business profits dramatically while cutting rates on the larger classes dramatically. Not sure how this helps employment. It does help wall street.

Hey, maybe that's why markets went up on the news ya THINK?

*Edit - it looks like the Senate bill that passed this morning did include provisions to help small businesses. It was added at the very last second to influence the final two votes. This should scare the heck out of everyone. It wasn't an oversight.

Your wit is dizzying.


In simple terms, if you were to make a 10m capital investment that hoped to net 1.5m in profit, the proposed difference in marginal corporate taxes would be 2.25% of the total investment. That's not usually going to big enough to sway an investment decision given much larger factors. One reason is that the capital investment is risk adjusted using a hurdle rate which could be 19%. What kind of a return would you get if you just invested that 10m into bonds? This is usually subtracted and make the tax savings even less significant.

Note that the 35% rate is misleading. The effective average rate is closer to 20%...buy maintaining deductions that's even going to go way down which is why the deficit will explode.

The bottom line is that investment ideas are either good or bad. A good idea isn't going to be shelved because of a few percentage points...most companies either have the cash or can leverage given the low interest rates.
If the true effective rate is 20%, then cutting the published rate to 20 costs us nothing, and thus the liberals can’t say it’s a gimmick to help the rich. Can’t have it both ways, sorry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, on a 10m investment in our example, you said the income needs to be 1.5m for it to return 15%. That’s the net. The gross income on that investment needs to be 2.31m at a tax rate of 35%. At a rate of 20%, the gross return needs to be 1.875m, 20% less. Not a trivial shift in the cost benefit math.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If I ran my personal finances like this government, I'd be filing bankruptcy as often as Trump has. The deficit is getting out of control.

If I ran my personal finances like this government, I'd be filing bankruptcy as often as Trump has. The deficit is getting out of control.


Yes - something many have been harping about for a decade but were told were racists.