• 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!

Why you’ll pay for Trump’s tax cut

Rogue Valley said:
Why you’ll pay for Trump’s tax cut

When Trump demands tax reform ... it's not for your benefit.
Click to expand...

President Trump is following the path of President Regan; tax cuts leads to higher economic growth and therefore higher tax revenues.

“Contrary to the claims of voodoo economics, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 — close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation),”
Click to expand...

The reason this is true is government never turns a profit. If it has money left over it will waste it. If this same tax money was to go back to the private sector, as a tax cut, some people will save and some people will invest in the stock market and/or new business. This adds a rate of return to the original investment; growth. How many people who write in the forums have made a profit in their retirement account? Government never turns a profit. Even a 1% return on savings accounts is 1% growth. Lower tax rates, by adding potential investment money can generate wealth. This can produce more tax revenue. The Regan experiment demonstrated this.

Most elected officials are lawyers. They are not economists. They are amateurs in terms of the schooling behind the science of money growth. It would be like hiring Bill Gates to represent you in court. He may be brilliant in computers and business, but he lacks lawyer skills. he did not take the time to learn the needed skills to be effective.

Lawyers do not have economic money skills, as good as business people who ons do this. Defense lawyers are better at bull crap, such as convincing a jury of their peers the witness is corrupt, not their client. Propaganda and lawyering go hand in hand. If I needed propaganda a lawyer would be better choice than a businessman. But economic growth and those who are business majors go hand in hand.
 
My question is what would be so wrong in paying less in taxes? Even though it's a different area, it's not that much different than people wanting to pay less on tv, food, cars, insurance, phone plans, games, movies, and the list goes on. "The wealthy will become more wealthy." Why are you so worried about the wealthy? "They use loopholes in our tax system and screw people." The first part is correct, but what's wrong with making more money? I don't hear the same people complain when they score big on their paychecks, whether it be a promotion at work or by other means. I guarantee they would NOT complain if they made the same as wealthy people and be ecstatic to see their taxes go down. Besides many of these "wealthy" people, are business owners. You know, the people that write our paychecks? If their taxes go down, they can afford to pay you more while lowering prices of whatever the business is (and they themselves can also earn their living). If you want to look at a REAL tax cheat, look no further than Crazy Bernie.
 
We need to reduce taxes as well as spending. The government debt is atrocious and this can easily be reduced by eliminating a lot of the federal expenditures and turning them over to the states, or better yet privatizing many things.
 
NIMBY said:
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 ...
Click to expand...
LOL.

You must not have gotten the joke when Mr. Drysdale freaked out when Jed Calmpett wanted to come down to the bank and see his money.
See , what Jed didn't know was that the money was actually out there making Jed more money by making productive investments.
 
NIMBY said:
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 ...
Click to expand...
LOL.

You must not have gotten the joke when Mr. Drysdale freaked out when Jed Calmpett wanted to come down to the bank and see his money.
See , what Jed didn't know was that the money was actually out there making Jed more money by making productive investments.
 
Absentglare said:
bef8228b68a1d36955434f6b388f4897.jpg


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.
Click to expand...
LOL
You must not have gotten the joke when Mr. Drysdale freaked out when Jed Calmpett wanted to come down to the bank and see his money.
See , what Jed didn't know was that the money was actually out there making Jed more money by making productive investments.
 
fmw said:
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.
Click to expand...

IKR!!

Heck, just wait till the Uniparty get their fingers on this. I don't expect ANY tax reform out of our Congress this year...or next.
 
wellwisher said:
President Trump is following the path of President Regan; tax cuts leads to higher economic growth and therefore higher tax revenues.

The reason this is true is government never turns a profit. If it has money left over it will waste it. If this same tax money was to go back to the private sector, as a tax cut, some people will save and some people will invest in the stock market and/or new business. This adds a rate of return to the original investment; growth. How many people who write in the forums have made a profit in their retirement account? Government never turns a profit. Even a 1% return on savings accounts is 1% growth. Lower tax rates, by adding potential investment money can generate wealth. This can produce more tax revenue. The Regan experiment demonstrated this.

Most elected officials are lawyers. They are not economists. They are amateurs in terms of the schooling behind the science of money growth. It would be like hiring Bill Gates to represent you in court. He may be brilliant in computers and business, but he lacks lawyer skills. he did not take the time to learn the needed skills to be effective.

Lawyers do not have economic money skills, as good as business people who ons do this. Defense lawyers are better at bull crap, such as convincing a jury of their peers the witness is corrupt, not their client. Propaganda and lawyering go hand in hand. If I needed propaganda a lawyer would be better choice than a businessman. But economic growth and those who are business majors go hand in hand.
Click to expand...
Yes, we know the drill "Morning in America." Unfortunately, the Reagan lionizing is unjustified. But don't listen to me, listen to a Nobel Prize winning economist on this very topic:

Reagan and revenue

Ah – commenter Tom says, in response to my post on taxes and revenues:
Taxes were cut at the beginning of the Reagan administration.
Federal tax receipts increased by 50% by the end of the Reagan Administration.
Although correlation does not prove causation the tax cut must have accounted for some portion of this increase in federal tax receipts.
Click to expand...

I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.

Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19% over the same period — better than... Bush performance {who also slashed taxes}, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24%) and much less than the amazing 41% gain from 1992 to 2000.

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.

Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:
1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero
Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.
Click to expand...

Reagan and Revenues

...
The way I like to look at it is to compare business cycle peaks. We know that recessions reduce revenue and recoveries raise it. So it’s much more informative to look at peaks (not troughs: all happy economies are more or less alike, each unhappy economy is unhappy in its own way). Oh, and since 1979-82 was really one double-dip recession, I just use 1979 and ignore the 80-81 “recovery”.

So here’s the rate of growth of real per capita federal revenues between successive business cycle peaks:

062211krugman1-blog480.jpg


here was no Reagan revenue miracle; growth slowed. There was a Clinton miracle. And there was a Bush II reverse miracle.
Click to expand...
 
Rogue Valley said:
Why you’ll pay for Trump’s tax cut

When Trump demands tax reform ... it's not for your benefit.
Click to expand...

First, tax policy shouldn't be predicated on intangible class warfare talking points that Politicians like Bernie Sanders uses to rile up his base. The idea that Corporations and Investors are the sole beneficiaries of lower taxes and that the rest of us pay for those tax cuts is baseless left wing propaganda, but that isn't stopping people like Sanders and Warren from spreading their nonsense to a lot of naive supporters

Right this minute, large corporations are and have been offshoring all their profits and yes, this Apple who sends all their profits over to Ireland to Apple subsidiaries set up for the sole purpose of tax avoidance

A estimated 2.5 Trillion is being off-shored by American companies, so the idea that Corporations and or investors simply suck it up and pay higher taxes is a fallacy.
Liberals blasted Corporate inversions under claiming it was unpatriotic to avoid the highest corporate tax rates in the world, but pubic shaming is not how you create a business friendly competitive atmosphere that leads to job creation Libs and investors and corporations will always find ways around tax policy thats predicated on platitudes and " fairness ".

Corporate tax rates should be lowered quite a bit. Canada lowered theirs to 15% and US Corporations took advantage of this via tax inversions that sent hundreds of billions of dollars accross the border. With a 1.8% average GDP over the last 8 years, we should could have used that extra capital. Capital Gains taxes need to be lowered also, hell even Clinton was smart enough to lower capital gains taxes
 
Tax rates do not mean anything. Deductions and exemptions can be used to adjust these rates downward. For example, the Obama's in 2016 paid a 18.7% tax rate on an income of about $440,000. At an income of $400,000, their tax rate should be 35%. The tax rate is meaningless since deductions allows one to adjust their rate.

If Trump lowered the tax rate for the Obamas to 18.7%, while getting rid of all their deductions, this would be revenue neutral. Tax rate is an illusion that fools the leftist masses. The leftist leadership does not explain how the deduction scam works.

Deductions are how the tax rate become adjusted downward. Writing and giving access to new and old deductions, in the complex tax code, is why the tax code is so long, and is how elected officials get campaign donations from rich donors. The Democratic leadership does not wish to lose this money laundering scam, so they misrepresent tax rates to their base.

America's corporate tax rate is 35 percent.

But 115 companies on the S&P500 pay less than 20 percent in taxes, according to a study the Capital IQ and The New York Times. That's not even counting 37 companies like Citigroup and AIG that received more in tax credits than they paid.

All this thanks to loopholes in the immensely complicated tax code.

We tracked down the data from Capital IQ to identify the large corporations that pay less than 5 percent in taxes.
Click to expand...

For example, Amazon is under the corporate tax rate of 35%. However, they only paid an effect rate of 4.33%. If the corporate tax rate fell to 15% and Amazon could not buy any deductions with campaign contributions, this would raise over $billion in new tax revenues. The Democrat leadership will not deal with this in an honest fashion. since they money launder and then skim some of the difference between 35% and 4.33%; cronyism.
 
MTAtech said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lol ! Corporations have been offshoring their profits for years to avoid the second highest corporate tax rate among developed Nations

Add the effective US Corporate tax rate with State tax and Corporations have good reason to offshore 2.5 Trillion dollars in profits

When Canada lowered its tax rate to 15 percent, American corporations jumped at the chance to relocate and the best the Obama administration could come up with to stop corporate inversions was to call them " unpatriotic "

The US has been losing revenue on trillions of dollars in profits because the Left thinks tax policy should be dictated on intangible class struggle rhetoric.

The thing is people like Sanders and Warren know there ars trillions in profits parked overseas, they know the US isnt seeing any revenues from it but they support the same tax rates and policies that keep that money out of the US

So what gives ?
 
Absentglare said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or corporate welfare, here in Wisconsin we are giving a Chinese company 3 billion tax dollars, aand setting aside environmental protections, eliminating sales tax for them and giving them special access to our supreme court. Even in a. Best case scenario taxpayers MAY break even Iin 25 years.

I thought the right apposed socialism and borrow and spend policies...
 
JANFU said:
Same ones that paid for Reagan's. The poor, low income, social assistance programs to name 3.
Click to expand...

How do people who don't pay income tax pay for income tax cuts?
 
Mycroft said:
IKR!!

Heck, just wait till the Uniparty get their fingers on this. I don't expect ANY tax reform out of our Congress this year...or next.
Click to expand...

Yes, Congress is the best place to get any good idea destroyed.
 
Fletch said:
How do people who don't pay income tax pay for income tax cuts?
Click to expand...

Correct. People who earn $70,000 per year and more pay 96% of the income tax revenue for the federal government. Tax cuts are for the middle and affluent classes. It is they that pay the taxes.
 
fmw said:
Correct. People who earn $70,000 per year and more pay 96% of the income tax revenue for the federal government. Tax cuts are for the middle and affluent classes. It is they that pay the taxes.
Click to expand...

I would love to cut taxes for the poor. But the poor would actually have to start paying taxes to actually get a cut in them. But perhaps some liberal will come along and explain how allowing me to keep more of my own income harms anyone.
 
JANFU said:
Where cuts are made to balance lost revenue.
Click to expand...

Didnt Canada lower its corporate tax rate to 15 percent ? Wait, youre Canadian right ? And youre arguing against cutting Corporate taxes in the US ?
What happened when Canada cut its corporate tax rate to 15 percent ?

US Corporations purchased Canadian bussinesses and used those subsidiaries to offshore their profits.
Canada wound up with the tax revenues so I can definately understand why a Canadian would oppose cutting Corporate tax rates.

So high US Corporate tax rates at the State and Federal level may be great for Nations like Canada but they screw America and hurt American workers
 
Fenton said:
Didnt Canada lower its corporate tax rate to 15 percent ? Wait, youre Canadian right ? And youre arguing against cutting Corporate taxes in the US ?
What happened when Canada cut its corporate tax rate to 15 percent ?

US Corporations purchased Canadian bussinesses and used those subsidiaries to offshore their profits.
Canada wound up with the tax revenues so I can definately understand why a Canadian would oppose cutting Corporate tax rates.

So high US Corporate tax rates at the State and Federal level may be great for Nations like Canada but they screw America and hurt American workers
Click to expand...

I think it is around 20 %
 
Fenton said:
Didnt Canada lower its corporate tax rate to 15 percent ? Wait, youre Canadian right ? And youre arguing against cutting Corporate taxes in the US ?
What happened when Canada cut its corporate tax rate to 15 percent ?

US Corporations purchased Canadian bussinesses and used those subsidiaries to offshore their profits.
Canada wound up with the tax revenues so I can definately understand why a Canadian would oppose cutting Corporate tax rates.

So high US Corporate tax rates at the State and Federal level may be great for Nations like Canada but they screw America and hurt American workers
Click to expand...

Yep and the Feds lost all that tax revenue.
 
JANFU said:
Where cuts are made to balance lost revenue.
Click to expand...

What cuts are you talking about? Government grows and spends more regardless of its revenue. What balance? The government hasn't worried about balance since the Jackson administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom