GOP TAX PLAN

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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!

[detbuch]

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.

[PaulS]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The corp. tax cuts help corps.

The deduction helps people if they take the deduction

.

this is some brilliance......

[detbuch]

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?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[scottw]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[Sea Dangles]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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).

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

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





Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.politico.com/interactive...e-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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

https://www.politico.com/interactive...e-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.

[Nebe]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[PaulS]

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

Hypocrites.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?