- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,329
- Reaction score
- 82,718
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Both Trump and the GOP members of Congress have been talking about tax "reform" openly. It's not a secret. Ryan said that he wants it passed by year-end.This article criticized a bill that hasn't been written yet and hasn't even been outlined. It is way way too early for panic.
Imagine that Congress has assembled an extensive legislative package aimed at lowering taxes across the board. The bill would slash the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, with little effort to make up for the lost revenue by eliminating corporate tax preferences. In addition, the bill would substantially reduce individual income taxes, by doubling the standard deduction and preserving the personal exemption, which would take millions of middle-class households off the individual tax rolls. Between these changes and several others, the bill would lower federal revenue by $4 trillion.
This article criticized a bill that hasn't been written yet and hasn't even been outlined. It is way way too early for panic.
This article criticized a bill that hasn't been written yet and hasn't even been outlined. It is way way too early for panic.
Both Trump and the GOP members of Congress have been talking about tax "reform" openly. It's not a secret. Ryan said that he wants it passed by year-end.
The plans that they have been discussing cutting corporate and individual tax rates and making other changes to the tax code, exactly what the OP's article warned.
The Tax Foundation said cutting the corporate rate from 35% to 15% would cost trillions in revenue over ten years.
Yep, but anyone with a brain and a calculator already knew that. You cannot cut taxes in a revenue neutral way (especially when you consider that taxation is revenue) - so, to pretend to can do so, you must add "future GDP growth" as the magical balancing factor.
But, as any congress critter already knows, you can also "grow the GDP" by simply borrowing the money that you add to it with more government spending. Proposing cutting taxation without equal cuts in government spending is simply saying that you will borrow the difference, spend it and say "the GDP went up, just like we said it would".
But that is the standard for the anti-Trump crowd. President Trump says something, they object immediately. Even if they agree with it.
Or you can get serious about fixing our trade balance so we don't export capital, and instead export goods and services on a level playing field. Bad trade deals cost America money.
Or you can get serious about fixing our trade balance so we don't export capital, and instead export goods and services on a level playing field. Bad trade deals cost America money.
Bananas and strawberries are wonderful fruits but also have nothing to do with federal income tax policy.
You'd better crack the economic books, mister.
It has a lot to do with the final cost of a product that is exported.
No, it did not
The article does not say one word about any bill.
Sorry, It criticized a concept that could become a bill.
Do you think there is something wrong with an article criticizing a concept?
Only if it is politically motivated.
Of course not.
The people who complain about the national debt claim that we can't afford much-needed social spending because it would be "borrowing from future generations". These same people will then turn around and support massive handouts to the rich paid for by, you guessed it, "borrowing from future generations".
Too bad they can't demonstrate the intellectual honesty necessary to have a coherent ideology.
With the difference between the two being that infrastructure type spending multiplies its way through the economy and is vitally necessary with the first generation of modern roads coming of age.
While tax cuts for those who don't need them collect paper interest ...
Both Trump and the GOP members of Congress have been talking about tax "reform" openly. It's not a secret. Ryan said that he wants it passed by year-end.
The plans that they have been discussing cutting corporate and individual tax rates and making other changes to the tax code, exactly what the OP's article warned.
The Tax Foundation said cutting the corporate rate from 35% to 15% would cost trillions in revenue over ten years.
Of course not.
The people who complain about the national debt claim that we can't afford much-needed social spending because it would be "borrowing from future generations". These same people will then turn around and support massive handouts to the rich paid for by, you guessed it, "borrowing from future generations".
Too bad they can't demonstrate the intellectual honesty necessary to have a coherent ideology.
We're supposed to believe that "The Heir" contributes so much more to the economy than "The Doctor" simply by parking their inherited wealth somewhere.