Trumps tax proposal
 

His Treasury Secretary says the proposal will include a reduction in the US Corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. Big increases in personal deductions. Calling it the largest tax cut in US history.

Will it pass?

Will it work? Will it be followed by an increase in tax revenues collected (as happened when Bill Clinton and Bush 43 cut taxes), or will it lead to huge deficits (as happened when the state of Kansas tried tax cuts recently)?

Here in CT, where tax rates are a hair lower than they are in Venezuela, the legislature is going crazy because April state income tax revenues are hundreds of millions of dollars lower than what was expected.

Tax revenue collected, doesn't always move with tax rates. Tax cuts can be followed by an increase in tax revenue (if they are stimulative), tax hikes can be followed by a decrease in tax revenue (when the hikes cause people to move elsewhere, or to cut back on income generation).

One thing I like about Trump, the benefit of electing an outsider, is that he could care less about maintaining the status quo if there's a better idea.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...rate-rate.html

Curious - I don't think he'll get those deep cuts - just a start point for negotiations.

At what point do the tax cuts stimulate the economy enough to offset the cuts?

I see no real spending cuts attached to this

No one knows for sure why some cuts are stimulative, and why some just decrease revenue.

I've seen quite a few economists ay that the cut in corporate tax rate will pay for itself, because huge sums of corporate money will come back here that is now parked overseas. If he gets the cuts, we will see. If they don't work, we will know it didn't work.

No, he's not talking about massive spending cuts to offset it, because he is saying it will spur growth to pay for it. That's what happened, presumably, when Clinton and Bush cut taxes, because those cuts were irrefutably followed by increases in tax revenues collected, not decreases.

That big of a cut sound good back to trickle down to bad US companys have shown that non of that money will go to improved wages better benefits or more Jobs... it will just boost share holders and CEO pay our their own pockets ...
and most do not pay the 35% rate now

Owner of Nick's Roast Beef sentenced for skimming nearly $6 million over 6-year period http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...beef_sent.html


tax cuts will pay for themselves.. Conservatives unicorns

and now the deficit isn't a concern for some

and the Avg American whats he or she get in dollars or infrastructure we dont get much now at the current Rate ?

We'll wait and see the details

Imagine if all those tax cuts were used for job creation and wage growth on US soil.

That would be fantastic. But somehow I doubt it will happen
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=everyone[/QUOTE]

rinse,, repeat, rinse , repeat........:chatter

And what if it creates jobs? What is your economic solution?

Good. Let 'em go to jail. Law = Enforced


Geee - some of us have been harping on the deficit for a long time and have not stopped

Have you ever worked in the private sector as an adult?

"to bad US companys have shown that non of that money will go to improved wages better benefits or more Jobs"

That is demonstrably false. After the Clinton and Bush tax cuts, there was a time when unemployment was so low, that my dog could have walked into Wendy's and walked out an assistant manager. Look it up. If businesses can invest in themselves and grow profitably, they have every conceivable incentive to do so.

"it will just boost share holders"

Which includes everyone who has an IRA or a 401(k),

"Owner of Nick's Roast Beef sentenced for skimming nearly $6 million over 6-year period "

So what? You saying bad people only exist in business? There has never been a prison guard arrested for a felony?

"tax cuts will pay for themselves"

FACT...tax revenues collected, increased after the Clinton and Bush tax cuts. That is plain fact. It doesn't always work that way, but you can't say that tax cuts never pay for themselves. You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

"Imagine if all those tax cuts were used for job creation and wage growth on US soil."

Clinton and Bush cut taxes, and companies created jobs, and unemployment was very low.

Then Obama spent almost a trillion on a stimulus package he said would keep unemployment under 8%, it soared over 10%.

Government spending isn't always superior to private spending.

Bush and Obama forwarded stimulus packages. Bush and Obama drastically increased the total debt. If you are going to credit Clinton and Bush tax cuts, least you can do is note Bush and Obama debt.
:crying::heybaby:

There are no substantive cuts proposed yet, which makes this hypocrisy of the first order. I agree it won't pass as it stands now.

I heard a supporter of the plan (from Congress) on Squawk Box this AM (on XM radio, so I couldn't see who it was) basically argue that yes, it was going to add to the deficit, but it would jump start the economy for the next generation.

The last round of this had a small bump in the economy, which was a positive, but coupled with two wars and no significant cuts it added to the deficit significantly. What will be different this time? It will likely involve costs for some conflict or interaction with the Norks in conjunction with the cuts. I don't think we will see significant repatriation of funds, even at 15%.

Either way the 9% growth I heard needed to offset the cuts aren't even a pipe dream. if we get over 3% growth that will be pretty damn good....

"Bush and Obama drastically increased the total debt"

True, and I didn't even come close to denying that. The debt increased under Bush, in my opinion, primarily because of spending. Tax revenues collected after his tax cuts, were the highest revenues ever. That's fact. Would we have collected more revenue if he hadn't cut taxes? Quite possible.

My point was that tax cuts don't necessarily cause revenue to decrease, not if the stimulative effect outweighs the cut.

I would never say that Bush was a conservative spender. But his tax cuts were followed by increases in tax revenue. Had he kept spending at Clinton levels, the Clinton surpluses might well have continued.

"There are no substantive cuts proposed yet,"

Cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 to 15, isn't substantive? Nothing has been proposed in writing yet, just words.

"which makes this hypocrisy of the first order."

How, exactly? It's "hypocritical" to announce some parts of a proposal, before you have it finalized in writing? It's hypocritical to say "here's what we are going to propose..."?

"I agree it won't pass as it stands now. "

Likely not. And then in a year, during the midterms, the GOP can run commercials in purple states where Democrats are up for re-election, saying that the incumbent democrat voted against putting more money in your pocket. There are 10 Democrats in the Senate (I think) up for re-election in states that Trump won. THAT has the potential to be devastating, but only if Trump governs effectively.

"What will be different this time?"

First, last time there was no slashing of the corporate tax rate. Come on, that's huge - could be hugely bad, but you can't say that's not significantly different from the Clinton and Bush cuts.

Second, a big part of the increased spending was setting up an anti-terror infrastructure, from scratch. We don't need to do that again. Cheaper to maintain something that already exists, than to build it from scratch.

Offsetting this, is that more and more Baby Boomers will be retiring, of course, collecting SS and Medicare benefits that are a massive drain. So we need something to jump start the economy, because our expenditures on SS and Medicare are increasing rapidly. Does anyone think that tax increases are likely to do it?

"I don't think we will see significant repatriation of funds, even at 15%"

Some economists speculate we will see massive repatriation of funds.

"Either way the 9% growth I heard needed to offset the cuts aren't even a pipe dream. if we get over 3% growth that will be pretty damn good"

Agreed.

No spending cuts yet to offset this in an meaningful way is what I was getting at. Given the platform lately, that is hypocritical, but I expect nothing less from Donald, who still has rarely shows any significant core values that won't flip flop.

Some economists do say we will see funds come home, great if they do, but I doubt it will be in any significant number.

He campaigned on tax cuts, he is saying there will be tax cuts. Not including offsetting spending cuts may be irresponsible, I still don't see any hypocrisy.

I am sure we both hope that huge piles of cash come back, time will tell. Ask a small business owner what it would mean to him. When we talk about businesss tax cuts, the immediate reaction is always about how this only helps the zillionaires at the expense of the middle class. What gets lost, intentionally in my opinion, is that the vast majority of business owners are middle class and upper middle class. A guy who owns a restaurant or small landscaping company isn't parking his money in Ireland. But these cuts will make a meaningful difference to him.

As someone who worked in budgeting/planning previously it would be a joke to call this a "plan". It is almost not worth commenting on - but....... A one page, double spaced paper w/lots of white space is not a tax plan.

Nothing was said about the income thresholds at which the rates apply, there was something about eliminating tax breaks, but didn’t say which. When asked specifically which deductions, the WH gave confilicting answers depending on who was asked.

It proposed huge tax breaks for corp. and the very rich with the breaks especially lucrative for people who can bypass regular personal taxes by moving their income into tax-privileged businesses, gets rid of the AMT and estate tax which only affect like 5K families. All this benefits a select few (like guess who??). Adds like $20 Trillion (I believe I saw) to the debt. So it benefits the very rich and and from what we have seen in Trump's previous budget proposal it harms the very poor.

This was all bc Pres. Trump was upset about news stories that looked at his first 100 days and conclude that he hasn’t achieved much (there was a conserv. SC justice approved but how could he possibly screw that up).

"So it benefits the very rich "

How about a family that owns a small restaurant, a small landscaping business, a small anything. Don't they also benefit significantly from a reduction in the corporate tax rate? Does that only apply to big businesses? Or are you of the opinion that all business owners are wealthy?

If all he did in his first term was get Gorsuch to the SCOTUS, I'd be happy.

The stock market is way up in his first 100 days, but I am certain that is a residual effect of something Obama did single-handedly, I know, let's give him the Nobel Prize in economics to go with his Nobel Peace Prize.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung.../#459d32d17463

Bush tax cuts had resulted in significant job growth. To the true believers, Mr. Varney's position represents a restatement of the obvious—cutting taxes creates jobs while increasing taxes will likely have the opposite effect.

The results?

If the tax cuts delivered to the wealthy by President Bush are the shining beacon of policy to be used when making the case that reducing taxes leads to increased jobs numbers, tax hawks are going to have to go back to the drawing board or hope that the dishonestly of their political pitch can survive the truth come election day because the facts just don't back up the assertion.

once again Facts dont matter

facts and truth as you see it from your perspective(or Richard Ungar's)...doesn't necessarily make your facts and truth right, just makes you right in your mind from your perspective....and of course anyone who might disagree is wrong and lacking facts or missing truths....:D

Rick Ungar , CONTRIBUTOR
I write from the left on politics and policy.


at least he's honest about his obvious bias...

"the tax cuts delivered to the wealthy by President Bush "

Bush cut the tax rates of everyone who pays taxes. Your taxes decreased too. Can't you be honest for a sentence?

The article does not dispute that the Bush tax cuts (for everybody) were followed by job growth. The author concedes that. All he does, is point to another time when job growth was NOT preceded by tax cuts.

So if anyone said "the only way jobs can ever grow is with big tax cuts", yes, your link disproves that. If, however, one says (as I did), "the Bush tax cuts were followed by job growth", the article doesn't dispute that. Your article admits that.

When anyone says "the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy", you can stop reading right there. He cut tax rates for many who are not wealthy (but for the wealthy too).

I thought FORBES was a right wing fake news purveyor....

That would make it your go to then, right....?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm a centrist

Maybe compared to Steve Bannon....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know who that is

Then you are far less informed and engaged than I would have thought Scott

doesn't he pitch for the Houston Astros?

No , he's referring to the other one , the Nazi,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I don't equate Bannon with a Nazi, but I do think he is fairly despicable as a human being, with some pretty far right views.

I think Scott is not a despicable human, with views probably to the center compared to Bannon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

phew....