• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House GOP Tax Reform Plan

Moderate Right said:
While you are right that we should not lower taxes now because it will indeed lower revenues, the rest of your post is a bunch of crap. You need to understand the Laffer curve better than you do.
Click to expand...

What don't I understand? Please be specific.
 
JasperL said:
Sure solar is economically viable. It's not viable at the moment as a sole source of energy - we'll need fossil fuels for quite a while - but as a way to produce a given amount of electricity, it's absolutely viable and would be more viable if it enjoyed the decades of subsidies we've provided fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Viable economically...
 
jaeger19 said:
BS.. you have the democrats like Bernie calling for rates in the 70's and higher.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with my statement that tax rate CUTS from this point will reduce revenues? I also pointed out that there IS a peak to the Laffer Curve and it's somewhere around 70%. Seems no doubt that increasing rates from current to 70% would also raise revenue. So is there a point with this comment?

For the record, Bernie is an independent/democratic socialist.

So yes.. the left are idiots.
Click to expand...

Please define "the left" for me. Last I heard, we don't all march in lockstep with every utterance by Bernie Sanders. That kind of blind following is mostly seen with Trump supporters these days.

Besides, we were talking about tax rates and revenue effects. Please cite your study that a rate of 90% will cause revenue to drop. You just called the fictional, made up "the left" idiots for supposedly believing the opposite, so produce your work that they are idiots for whoever the left is who believe that. I'm agnostic myself about the revenue effects, but won't give it a lot of thought because it's not going to happen.
 
Mac77 said:
End the Earned Income Tax credit and subsidies to solar panel owners
Click to expand...

Our grand-daughter's mother is a full time student. Her step-grandfather is a CPA. He told her that if she had worked even ONE day last year, she would have gotten at least $5000 in EIC. So if you have at least one kid, you'd better make sure that you have at least SOME income each year so you can get that fat gov't check.
 
faithful_servant said:
Our grand-daughter's mother is a full time student. Her step-grandfather is a CPA. He told her that if she had worked even ONE day last year, she would have gotten at least $5000 in EIC. So if you have at least one kid, you'd better make sure that you have at least SOME income each year so you can get that fat gov't check.
Click to expand...

That's false, actually, unless that "one day" of work produced something like $10,000 in income or more. The benefit increases as the person earns more in income, up to a maximum, then the credit phases out.

EITC%20Credit%20Size.png
 
faithful_servant said:
Our grand-daughter's mother is a full time student. Her step-grandfather is a CPA. He told her that if she had worked even ONE day last year, she would have gotten at least $5000 in EIC. So if you have at least one kid, you'd better make sure that you have at least SOME income each year so you can get that fat gov't check.
Click to expand...

Its just a damn welfare program and should be first on the chopping block
 
JasperL said:
What don't I understand? Please be specific.
Click to expand...

Lets start with the one out of one hundred phrase you threw out. That's a bunch of malarkey. It doesn't have anything to do with percentages. If tax rates are too high and you lower them, you get increased revenues. If the tax rates are just right or too low and you lower them, you get decreased revenues. Neither the left nor the right understand how it works.
 
Mac77 said:
Its just a damn welfare program and should be first on the chopping block
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. You support giving each rich person an extra $400,000 and taking $3000 from each poor person because it is "welfare". All the EITC money goes straight back into the economy and the GDP and the $400,000 each will go straight into hedge funds that bid up commodities we all use. I will say you are totally brainwashed by the wealthy into doing their bidding for them. What is it like to be so hypnotized?
 
iguanaman said:
So let me get this straight. You support giving each rich person an extra $400,000 and taking $3000 from each poor person because it is "welfare". All the EITC money goes straight back into the economy and the GDP and the $400,000 each will go straight into hedge funds that bid up commodities we all use. I will say you are totally brainwashed by the wealthy into doing their bidding for them. What is it like to be so hypnotized?
Click to expand...

this sort of thinking permeates the left and its based on the idea that that government owns all wealth. you aren't GIVING people anything when you take less from them
 
Moderate Right said:
Lets start with the one out of one hundred phrase you threw out. That's a bunch of malarkey. It doesn't have anything to do with percentages. If tax rates are too high and you lower them, you get increased revenues. If the tax rates are just right or too low and you lower them, you get decreased revenues. Neither the left nor the right understand how it works.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the number of tax rate cuts in real life, reality, the real world. About the only one that I know of that might have proved the Laffer Curve in practice is the JFK/LBJ tax cuts in the 1960s, but those too expanded the base/cut 'loopholes'. That's the 1 time in 100, although the real numbers are likely closer to 1 in 1,000. Doesn't matter for purposes of the example.

So the point is real life examples of tax rate cuts INCREASING revenue are RARE, almost unheard of, and a person adopting the simple position - tax rate cuts will lower revenue (and vice versa) - will be correct nearly every time, and probably EVERY time the issue comes up over an entire lifetime. The person adopting that simple rule is not a 'moron' but reasonable, prudent, rational, responsible.

Conversely, any legislator who actually believes that tax rate cuts will INCREASE revenue is in fact a moron, at least as we sit here in the U.S. in 2017. We're nowhere near the likely top of the Laffer curve of roughly 70%, and states and local governments clearly are not, and so the rule that tax rate cuts will decrease revenue (and vice versa) is in fact the ONLY rational position to take on the front end of any decision to change tax rates.
 
jaeger19 said:
No it doesn't.
Click to expand...

OK, what is the rate? Cite your sources please!

no.
Click to expand...

No what? The lock in effect is real. Do a Google search - hundreds of hits. Here's an article by Martin Feldstein and Slemrod from 1978 - many more since.

And the estate example is also true - at death heirs get a stepped up basis in appreciated property to FMV on date of death. That's a powerful incentive to not sell appreciated property during life, and lowering the rate on capital gains decreases that incentive. Just basic economic theory predicts that more people will decide to sell at lower rates because they believe they can offset the tax penalty with more productive investments during life.

If you have a problem with that reasoning, please explain!
 
JasperL said:
I'm talking about the number of tax rate cuts in real life, reality, the real world. About the only one that I know of that might have proved the Laffer Curve in practice is the JFK/LBJ tax cuts in the 1960s, but those too expanded the base/cut 'loopholes'. That's the 1 time in 100, although the real numbers are likely closer to 1 in 1,000. Doesn't matter for purposes of the example.

So the point is real life examples of tax rate cuts INCREASING revenue are RARE, almost unheard of, and a person adopting the simple position - tax rate cuts will lower revenue (and vice versa) - will be correct nearly every time, and probably EVERY time the issue comes up over an entire lifetime. The person adopting that simple rule is not a 'moron' but reasonable, prudent, rational, responsible.

Conversely, any legislator who actually believes that tax rate cuts will INCREASE revenue is in fact a moron, at least as we sit here in the U.S. in 2017. We're nowhere near the likely top of the Laffer curve of roughly 70%, and states and local governments clearly are not, and so the rule that tax rate cuts will decrease revenue (and vice versa) is in fact the ONLY rational position to take on the front end of any decision to change tax rates.
Click to expand...

The Laffer curve actually shows that if you cut tax rates when they are already too low then you get less revenue. The Laffer curve is ALWAYS right.
 
TurtleDude said:
this sort of thinking permeates the left and its based on the idea that that government owns all wealth. you aren't GIVING people anything when you take less from them
Click to expand...

Your'e right, you are not giving people anything, you are TAKING it from the Govt. just like EITC is.
Explain how lowering taxes on a person by $400,000 does not cost the Govt. but giving a poor person $3000 in EITC does. It makes no sense and you are fooling no one. Giving away money to those who have more than enough is why or debt has increased so. Davis Stockton has already pointed that out and believes a wealth tax is in order to pay back some of the debt.

David Stockman is at it again. The Reagan-era budget director caused an uproar in 1981 by publicly decrying the moves of his boss to spur the economy with tax cuts. Now a private investor and author, he’s pushing for a huge new tax on big earners. Stockman would subject the nation’s top 10% of households to a levy equal to 30% of their wealth, payable over a decade. Without it, he maintains, the U.S. will wind up in a horrific, Greece-style debt wreck.
Click to expand...

Reagan's Budget Director, David Stockman, Proposes 30% Wealth Tax - Penta Daily - Barrons.com
 
iguanaman said:
So let me get this straight. You support giving each rich person an extra $400,000 and taking $3000 from each poor person because it is "welfare". All the EITC money goes straight back into the economy and the GDP and the $400,000 each will go straight into hedge funds that bid up commodities we all use. I will say you are totally brainwashed by the wealthy into doing their bidding for them. What is it like to be so hypnotized?
Click to expand...

Isnt it about time for some liberal to breathlessly inform me that the EITC was signed into law by Ronald Reagan?

Thats how this discussion usualllt goes

The $5 K given to each poor person is unearned and nothing more than welfare

It needs to be stopped
 
House GOP Tax Reform Plan
Click to expand...
There's absolutely nothing to worry about here.

The proof of the Republican party's superlative competence is:

they control the house
they control the senate
the control the exec

And they deftly exercised this pervasive control to make good on President Trump's promise to repeal & replace Obamacare.

I'm so glad they got that done so quickly and efficiently. Trumpcare is clearly vastly superior to the Obamacare it replaced.

So when the GOP tackles tax reform, I'm sure they'll accomplish results at least as satisfactory.

And I would like to take this opportunity to thank our Republican leaders:
- Trump
- Ryan
- McConnell
- Roberts
for their reliable, conservative stewardship.
 
JasperL said:
LOL, because they can afford to! The only purpose of taxes is to fund government, and it can't be on the backs of the poor because they have no money.

Besides, anyone who is wealthy in this era doesn't have a lot to complain about. We have a system designed to and delivering wealth to the top at a rate never before seen in human history, and leaving out a whole lot of people at the bottom. Them paying a bigger share to sustain that system is.....FAIR!
Click to expand...

The poor do have money. The IRS reported 2 million tax returns with 1-10k in AGI, accounting for 400 million in income. Furthermore, the system doesnt deliver wealth to anyone but the poor. People EARN wealth, then the govt takes it, and gives it to others, most of which is the poor. 75% of all spending is wealth redistribution from those who earn more to those who earn less.
 
jaeger19 said:
Ummm no..

Please explain how you benefit from patent protection. In fact.. you are probably HURT by patent protection. Without patent protection you would have multiple products to choose from and a lower price.

And no. they are not indirect benefits. I benefit monetarily because of roads 800 miles away. I benefit monetarily from million dollar contracts that are enforced because I have a judicial system available to me.

I seriously doubt you do.
Click to expand...

I already said. The products I buy exist because their creators can patent and own their IP.

promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Click to expand...

And you dont benefit directly from roads 800 miles away or million dollar contracts. You benefit indirectly, the same as me, in that you can get things shipped to you, or you can have criminals off the streets, or you can you have your freedoms protected because of the judicial system. Rich or Poor, we all have the same benefit from administration of justice.
 
Moderate Right said:
The Laffer curve actually shows that if you cut tax rates when they are already too low then you get less revenue. The Laffer curve is ALWAYS right.
Click to expand...

"Too low" is a meaningless description - what is "too low" exactly? And of course the Laffer Curve is "ALWAYS right" because it is just a graph that demonstrates that according to theory, when you cut rates revenue will almost always decrease, but sometimes when you cut rates, revenue might in fact increase! So it's like saying a coin with Yes on one side, No on the other will always give you the correct answer to a Yes or No question! Brilliant! Just flip the coin after the fact to the correct side, and voila, it's never wrong!

For making decisions in the real world, the Laffer Curve is worthless except as propaganda for right wingers who have to pretend they care about deficits. In real life we are on the left side of the curve, and tax rate cuts reduce revenue. But that's no fun, so the Laffer Curve gives dishonest hacks cover to cut taxes and fool the gullible that there is no need to make any sacrifices or hard choices, like cut spending, because there just might be a free lunch, a Tax Santa Clause, and you can both cut tax rates AND increase spending cause....magic!
 
jonny5 said:
The poor do have money. The IRS reported 2 million tax returns with 1-10k in AGI, accounting for 400 million in income. Furthermore, the system doesnt deliver wealth to anyone but the poor. People EARN wealth, then the govt takes it, and gives it to others, most of which is the poor. 75% of all spending is wealth redistribution from those who earn more to those who earn less.
Click to expand...
You say "wealth redistribution" like it was a bad thing. The idea that we should tax those with great wealth so that we can provide subsistence for those with too little is a long-standing American principle.

Below shows the wealth distribution in the U.S.

inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png
 
jonny5 said:
The poor do have money. The IRS reported 2 million tax returns with 1-10k in AGI, accounting for 400 million in income.
Click to expand...

OK, that's $200 a return. Good luck funding the military on that, even if you seize it all. That's roughly the cost to buy (but not operate) just a single F-22.

Furthermore, the system doesnt deliver wealth to anyone but the poor. People EARN wealth, then the govt takes it, and gives it to others, most of which is the poor. 75% of all spending is wealth redistribution from those who earn more to those who earn less.
Click to expand...

The distribution of earnings depends on the rules of the game, and the rules as they exist today, put in place by our government, deliver the vast majority of the wealth to a tiny few at the top. That's not an accident.

But let's pretend it is an accident. Doesn't matter. The country doesn't exist to deliver massive wealth to a few at the top and leave the rest of the country out of economic growth, productivity growth, etc. So to preserve the VERY lucrative economic system that for whatever reason DOES deliver the vast majority to a tiny few at the top, government does what it must and keeps the peace and pitchforks at bay by redistributing some of that wealth to the rest of us. When it does not, when you have a handful of extremely wealthy, and the poor not sharing in that prosperity, you have massive protests, deadly strikes, work stoppages, and frequently the people elect (when allowed) leaders who forcibly actually seize the wealth from the wealthy (not just part of their reported income), and upset the whole system. You can look at our own history for examples, or look around the world for MANY more.
 
MTAtech said:
You say "wealth redistribution" like it was a bad thing. The idea that we should tax those with great wealth so that we can provide subsistence for those with too little is a long-standing American principle.

Below shows the wealth distribution in the U.S.

inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png
Click to expand...

That system is far better than a mandate for a "living wage" which many propose as a (partial?) solution. As far as that being a long-standing American principle, much less a federal power, I disagree since even social security did not start until 1935 and is funded by a flat tax.
 
JasperL said:
"Too low" is a meaningless description - what is "too low" exactly? And of course the Laffer Curve is "ALWAYS right" because it is just a graph that demonstrates that according to theory, when you cut rates revenue will almost always decrease, but sometimes when you cut rates, revenue might in fact increase! So it's like saying a coin with Yes on one side, No on the other will always give you the correct answer to a Yes or No question! Brilliant! Just flip the coin after the fact to the correct side, and voila, it's never wrong!

For making decisions in the real world, the Laffer Curve is worthless except as propaganda for right wingers who have to pretend they care about deficits. In real life we are on the left side of the curve, and tax rate cuts reduce revenue. But that's no fun, so the Laffer Curve gives dishonest hacks cover to cut taxes and fool the gullible that there is no need to make any sacrifices or hard choices, like cut spending, because there just might be a free lunch, a Tax Santa Clause, and you can both cut tax rates AND increase spending cause....magic!
Click to expand...

It takes a while to figure that out and sometimes you just don't know until you change tax rates and observe what happens.
 
JasperL said:
They're the same thing - the only difference is how the tax benefit is calculated. If we allowed homeowners to 'deduct' solar panels instead of capitalizing them as part of the home, it has the same effect as a credit, just the amount may be different or calculated differently. Same thing with special corporate 'write offs' versus 'credits.'
Click to expand...

No they are not.

Because a credit can be a net INCOME.. as is the earned income credit.

While a deduction merely reduces the amount you pay in taxes. Big difference.


and a homeowner CAN deduct solar panels.

and in cases homeowners can deduct solar panels.. AND get a credit as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom