The Economist on Republican Tax

MrWonka · Nov 3, 2017

https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/11/bill-two-halves

What does a magazine dedicated entirely to economics and widely considered one of if not the most trustworthy news sources on the planet think about the economic impact of the Republican Tax plan? Well, generally they think it's bad.

"In the long run, the addition to the national debt will crowd out private investment and inhibit economic growth. The Tax Policy Center modelled the earlier sketch plan put out by Republicans and found that after four decades, GDP would be 0.4% lower, because of the increased debt burden. "

"The House Republicans’ tax bill has plenty of good features. But its lack of fiscal prudence is its undoing."

So the one thing fiscal conservatives claim to be all about...fiscal prudence...and their tax plan doesn't have it.

Exquisitor · Nov 4, 2017

MrWonka said:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/11/bill-two-halves

What does a magazine dedicated entirely to economics and widely considered one of if not the most trustworthy news sources on the planet think about the economic impact of the Republican Tax plan? Well, generally they think it's bad.

"In the long run, the addition to the national debt will crowd out private investment and inhibit economic growth. The Tax Policy Center modelled the earlier sketch plan put out by Republicans and found that after four decades, GDP would be 0.4% lower, because of the increased debt burden. "

"The House Republicans’ tax bill has plenty of good features. But its lack of fiscal prudence is its undoing."

So the one thing fiscal conservatives claim to be all about...fiscal prudence...and their tax plan doesn't have it.

The only person to make Congress get fiscally responsible was Bill Clinton. Barack Obama had no chance to get fiscally responsible with the economic crisis he was handed by G W Bush.

Now they want to venture further into the ramifications of fiscal irresponsibility.

Oborosen · Nov 4, 2017

Exquisitor said:
The only person to make Congress get fiscally responsible was Bill Clinton. Barack Obama had no chance to get fiscally responsible with the economic crisis he was handed by G W Bush.

Now they want to venture further into the ramifications of fiscal irresponsibility.

Lets face it, the one good thing about Bill was his fiscal responsibility. Bush pretty much ensured that every president for the next 6 - 8 seats would be stuck with cleaning up his "little" mishap. Barring some sort of massive economical boom at least, and we have yet to get a glimpse of such an event happening.

Oborosen · Nov 4, 2017

MrWonka said:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/11/bill-two-halves

What does a magazine dedicated entirely to economics and widely considered one of if not the most trustworthy news sources on the planet think about the economic impact of the Republican Tax plan? Well, generally they think it's bad.

"In the long run, the addition to the national debt will crowd out private investment and inhibit economic growth. The Tax Policy Center modelled the earlier sketch plan put out by Republicans and found that after four decades, GDP would be 0.4% lower, because of the increased debt burden. "

"The House Republicans’ tax bill has plenty of good features. But its lack of fiscal prudence is its undoing."

So the one thing fiscal conservatives claim to be all about...fiscal prudence...and their tax plan doesn't have it.

I for one am worried about the housing market going under again, especially with the mortgage rework that is going to be coming along. We already sat though that crap once, and I'll be damned if I have to see that come around for another go.

joG · Nov 4, 2017

MrWonka said:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/11/bill-two-halves

What does a magazine dedicated entirely to economics and widely considered one of if not the most trustworthy news sources on the planet think about the economic impact of the Republican Tax plan? Well, generally they think it's bad.

"In the long run, the addition to the national debt will crowd out private investment and inhibit economic growth. The Tax Policy Center modelled the earlier sketch plan put out by Republicans and found that after four decades, GDP would be 0.4% lower, because of the increased debt burden. "

"The House Republicans’ tax bill has plenty of good features. But its lack of fiscal prudence is its undoing."

So the one thing fiscal conservatives claim to be all about...fiscal prudence...and their tax plan doesn't have it.

That is exactly why it is poor thinking to take a c.p. approach to economic matters to judge in stead as guide to policies. Here the judgement should not be "Bad!". It should be "How do we reduce spending?".

joG · Nov 4, 2017

Oborosen said:
Lets face it, the one good thing about Bill was his fiscal responsibility. Bush pretty much ensured that every president for the next 6 - 8 seats would be stuck with cleaning up his "little" mishap. Barring some sort of massive economical boom at least, and we have yet to get a glimpse of such an event happening.

Actually it was costly to undertake the Asian incursions. That much is true. But our greatest challenge has been correcting for the Clinton/greenspan bubble the consequences of which we are still faced with.

joG · Nov 4, 2017

Exquisitor said:
The only person to make Congress get fiscally responsible was Bill Clinton. Barack Obama had no chance to get fiscally responsible with the economic crisis he was handed by G W Bush.

Now they want to venture further into the ramifications of fiscal irresponsibility.

You are not quite on track about Clinton. It was easy to believe this with the visible fiscal improvement we saw. But the elder Bush's frugal approach would have been better than the eight years fiesta Clinton dazzled the world with.
He actually missed the window of opportunity we had to radically restore fiscal health to the country after we won the Cold War. Instead, he spent far more than the Fed monetary largesse should have allowed for. The result was asset inflation that has so far resulted in three asset bubbles the first two of which have burst in succession. We now are sitting on the third wave.

Exquisitor · Nov 4, 2017

joG said:
You are not quite on track about Clinton. It was easy to believe this with the visible fiscal improvement we saw. But the elder Bush's frugal approach would have been better than the eight years fiesta Clinton dazzled the world with.
He actually missed the window of opportunity we had to radically restore fiscal health to the country after we won the Cold War. Instead, he spent far more than the Fed monetary largesse should have allowed for. The result was asset inflation that has so far resulted in three asset bubbles the first two of which have burst in succession. We now are sitting on the third wave.

Nonsense, the asset bubbles burst because of Bush and his tax cuts that hyper-inflated them.

Oborosen · Nov 4, 2017

joG said:
Actually it was costly to undertake the Asian incursions. That much is true. But our greatest challenge has been correcting for the Clinton/greenspan bubble the consequences of which we are still faced with.

Crap I completely forgot about Greenspan.
Whatever happened to that guy anyway?

I remember he stuck around for a little while after, but I recall him bailing when Bill got caught with his pants down.

JasperL · Nov 4, 2017

joG said:
You are not quite on track about Clinton. It was easy to believe this with the visible fiscal improvement we saw. But the elder Bush's frugal approach would have been better than the eight years fiesta Clinton dazzled the world with.

What are you talking about? Under Clinton, spending as a share of GDP went down, and receipts went up compared to Bush. In real dollars, Bush I increased spending by 23% in the first four years, Clinton 14%. Receipts under Bush I went up 16% versus 37% for Clinton in the first 4 years.

Do you have any data to back up your claims there - this "fiesta" compared to Bush I?

He actually missed the window of opportunity we had to radically restore fiscal health to the country after we won the Cold War. Instead, he spent far more than the Fed monetary largesse should have allowed for. The result was asset inflation that has so far resulted in three asset bubbles the first two of which have burst in succession. We now are sitting on the third wave.

You'll have to use some data to make that case. And I'd say if you want to make the case at all, the "He" in the above is the worst Fed chair in U.S. history, not to mention a hypocrite, Alan Greenspan.

JasperL · Nov 4, 2017

Oborosen said:
Crap I completely forgot about Greenspan.
Whatever happened to that guy anyway?

I remember he stuck around for a little while after, but I recall him bailing when Bill got caught with his pants down.

No, that's not right - he left office in January 2006. So he blew up the bubble then bailed and left the mess to everyone else. What a worthless POS that guy was.

Cordelier · Nov 4, 2017

Exquisitor said:
The only person to make Congress get fiscally responsible was Bill Clinton. Barack Obama had no chance to get fiscally responsible with the economic crisis he was handed by G W Bush.

Now they want to venture further into the ramifications of fiscal irresponsibility.

Bush's mistake was in doubling down on Reagan's supply-side tax code... this led to a glut of investment capital that couldn't be supported by demand and led to a frothy real estate market that inevitably imploded.

Obama's mistake was in squandering all of his political capital on a clap-trap healthcare reform held together with baling wire and duct tape.... after he got that passed, he had nothing left in the tank and spent the last six years of his Presidency essentially twiddling his thumbs.

If Obama had made tax reform his #1 priority and shifted more of the tax burden to taxpayers making in excess of $200,000, it would have spurred demand and given him the momentum to not get crushed in the 2010 mid-terms. Then he could have gotten the healthcare program he wanted instead of the one he had to settle for.

Any economic engine runs by consuming demand and supply in the same way your car's engine consumes fuel and air. If you want it to run efficiently, you need to find the right mix between the two. That's where the tax code comes in. In my opinion, Reagan's second term tax reform has set our economic mixture too rich and has led to 30 years of frothy investment markets and lagging consumer demand.

Oborosen · Nov 4, 2017

JasperL said:
No, that's not right - he left office in January 2006. So he blew up the bubble then bailed and left the mess to everyone else. What a worthless POS that guy was.

So basically he flew as far under the radar as he could while holding said position. I thought he retired sometime after Monica's little book got released. Its a little troubling to see just how long someone with such a history can still cling to their career.

Like a sociopolitical dingle berry.

JasperL · Nov 4, 2017

Oborosen said:
So basically he flew as far under the radar as he could while holding said position. I thought he retired sometime after Monica's little book got released. Its a little troubling to see just how long someone with such a history can still cling to their career.

Like a sociopolitical dingle berry.

Well, not that under the radar. In 2001 he testified about worrisome future budget SURPLUSES, and so provided some very needed grease for the Bush II tax cuts. Wrong about that, too.

And he was loved, and kept his job, because he was the best friend the banks and Wall Street have ever seen in our history. The "Greenspan put" was a real thing. And he testified more that once about his determination to intervene (i.e. raise rates) if wages started going up. Can't have that! If inflation goes into securities benefitting Wall Street, that's awesome - the point! - but we can't see wages for the average worker going up. Got to Nip that **** right in the bud.

washunut · Nov 5, 2017

Oborosen said:
So basically he flew as far under the radar as he could while holding said position. I thought he retired sometime after Monica's little book got released. Its a little troubling to see just how long someone with such a history can still cling to their career.

Like a sociopolitical dingle berry.

You guys are both wrong. He did not retire or leave on his own. His term was up and Obama appointed Bernanke. He was something like 80+ years old at that time. So he was replaced just as Yellen is being replaced and Bernanke before her.

Greenspan made serious mistakes IMO about sub-prime and derivatives. He also saved the economy a couple of times such as when Long Term Capital went under.

Oborosen · Nov 5, 2017

JasperL said:
Well, not that under the radar. In 2001 he testified about worrisome future budget SURPLUSES, and so provided some very needed grease for the Bush II tax cuts. Wrong about that, too.

And he was loved, and kept his job, because he was the best friend the banks and Wall Street have ever seen in our history. The "Greenspan put" was a real thing. And he testified more that once about his determination to intervene (i.e. raise rates) if wages started going up. Can't have that! If inflation goes into securities benefitting Wall Street, that's awesome - the point! - but we can't see wages for the average worker going up. Got to Nip that **** right in the bud.

I remember him testifying, though the budget wasn't really the problem most people were paying attention to. Then again when Bush got connected to it, the same ordeal jumped right back into the public eye.

Is it just me, or is it that very same kind of corporate favoritism that keeps butting a bad taste in the nations mouth?

Oborosen · Nov 5, 2017

washunut said:
You guys are both wrong. He did not retire or leave on his own. His term was up and Obama appointed Bernanke. He was something like 80+ years old at that time. So he was replaced just as Yellen is being replaced and Bernanke before her.

Greenspan made serious mistakes IMO about sub-prime and derivatives. He also saved the economy a couple of times such as when Long Term Capital went under.

Like I have already stated, I though he was gone before Obama even entered the picture.

JasperL · Nov 5, 2017

washunut said:
You guys are both wrong. He did not retire or leave on his own. His term was up and Obama appointed Bernanke. He was something like 80+ years old at that time. So he was replaced just as Yellen is being replaced and Bernanke before her.

Greenspan made serious mistakes IMO about sub-prime and derivatives. He also saved the economy a couple of times such as when Long Term Capital went under.

Not sure what I was wrong about, but no matter.

And the problem with LTCM and other Fed 'rescues' is Greenspan told us time and again that he and the Fed would protect Wall Street from its own failures, provide the floor. It was just a prelude to what we saw with the 2008 collapse. Heads Wall Street wins, tails we suckers pay off their losses. We didn't learn our lesson any of the many previous times when the Fed stepped in to prop up stock and bond markets, which encouraged more risky behavior, more and bigger bailouts and interventions to save the markets, and we still haven't learned it.

People have many legitimate complaints about the Obama years, but failing to do anything at all after the financial crisis except allow the system to operate as usual and in fact produce more and bigger, too big to fail institutions gets almost no attention but which I think is his biggest failure. There was rampant criminality during those years, and Obama's DoJ did really NOTHING. You can count the perp walks on one hand. Just tells us how big of a hold Wall Street has on government, and it doesn't matter who sits in the WH. Naming Tim Geithner as Treas. Sec. was just a big FU to the country, IMO. That guy ran the NY Fed, and watched the financial system that he oversaw right there in NYC collapse right before his damn eyes, and instead of being run out of town to spend the rest of his life teaching finance at some community college, he got promoted.

OpportunityCost · Nov 5, 2017

Oborosen said:
Lets face it, the one good thing about Bill was his fiscal responsibility. Bush pretty much ensured that every president for the next 6 - 8 seats would be stuck with cleaning up his "little" mishap. Barring some sort of massive economical boom at least, and we have yet to get a glimpse of such an event happening.

You would be amazed how many democrats fail to recognize that Bill Clinton found fiscal responsibility due to his triangulation strategy in order to get re-elected, not because he necessarily liked the concept.

He was dragged there, it wasn't very much by choice.

Oborosen · Nov 5, 2017

OpportunityCost said:
You would be amazed how many democrats fail to recognize that Bill Clinton found fiscal responsibility due to his triangulation strategy in order to get re-elected, not because he necessarily liked the concept.

He was dragged there, it wasn't very much by choice.

The only other thing that I think is attributable to Bill was the unemployment rate. Though even then, I think that is a stretch to even consider.

OpportunityCost · Nov 5, 2017

Oborosen said:
The only other thing that I think is attributable to Bill was the unemployment rate. Though even then, I think that is a stretch to even consider.

A lot of that came from the e-commerce boom.

Fraggle Rock · Nov 5, 2017

The loss of individual deductions coupled with the increase in the standard deduction is a push. Commander in Chief "bone Spur" is nothing more than a Carney running the egg shell game. They distracted people with their mumbo jumbo so they can eliminate the Estate Tax for the 5000 richest families while also removing the alternative minimum tax. That tax was put in there to basically stop the Super Rich from hiring a boat load of accountants so that they could pay zero income tax. In the one return that magically was leaked to the press, Trump would save himself 38 Million in just the one tax year. Oh suckers who voted for Trump...can you feel it now.....just grab your ankles. I will not even get into the people who own small business that will lose the ability to deduct health insurance costs, or the ability for those with medical bills and home mortgages with property taxes that will lose those write offs as well. Don't forget he is going to rebuild the military......LOL suckers

TurtleDude · Nov 5, 2017

Fraggle Rock said:
The loss of individual deductions coupled with the increase in the standard deduction is a push. Commander in Chief "bone Spur" is nothing more than a Carney running the egg shell game. They distracted people with their mumbo jumbo so they can eliminate the Estate Tax for the 5000 richest families while also removing the alternative minimum tax. That tax was put in there to basically stop the Super Rich from hiring a boat load of accountants so that they could pay zero income tax. In the one return that magically was leaked to the press, Trump would save himself 38 Million in just the one tax year. Oh suckers who voted for Trump...can you feel it now.....just grab your ankles. I will not even get into the people who own small business that will lose the ability to deduct health insurance costs, or the ability for those with medical bills and home mortgages with property taxes that will lose those write offs as well. Don't forget he is going to rebuild the military......LOL suckers

the death tax hits far more than the 5000 richest families and is nothing more than an envy based surtax on the top income tax payers.

JasperL · Nov 5, 2017

TurtleDude said:
the death tax hits far more than the 5000 richest families and is nothing more than an envy based surtax on the top income tax payers.

Not really. Any other transfer of money or items of value between two people are considered "income" for purposes of the IRC. Transfers through an estate are excluded in part because they're taxed under the estate tax. You want to keep the special exclusion from income tax, but not subject that income to the estate tax because in your view kids of rich parents deserve to receive $millions or $billions in tax free income, because something.... The actual reason is rich people are big donors and the GOP is paying them off.

And under the proposed rules, the untaxed gain at death will also go poof. So if mom sells MSFT to fund her nursing home, the gain is taxed. When Bill passes his shares down to his kids, the gain disappears, and kids write the stock up to FMV when Bill dies It's just another massive tax loophole and giveaway for the Paris Hilton crowd. If you're rich enough to hold onto appreciated assets until death, you can forever avoid income tax on the gain.

JasperL · Nov 5, 2017

OpportunityCost said:
You would be amazed how many democrats fail to recognize that Bill Clinton found fiscal responsibility due to his triangulation strategy in order to get re-elected, not because he necessarily liked the concept.

He was dragged there, it wasn't very much by choice.

LOL, that's funny. He did it, but for the wrong reasons! And it also took Congress - lots of Democrats. And voting for the tax increase cost many of them their jobs, which is why the GOP took over in 1994 in a huge GOP wave, so if they thought it was good for getting reelected, they got it wrong.

Speaking only for myself, I don't really give a damn what motivates politicians when they do the right thing, and almost all of them take almost all their votes with an eye to getting reelected. So blaming them for THAT means we don't even credit politicians for anything, ever.

The Economist on Republican Tax

MrWonka

Exquisitor

Educator

Oborosen

Doctor D

Oborosen

Doctor D

joG

joG

joG

Exquisitor

Educator

Oborosen

Doctor D

JasperL

JasperL

Cordelier

18th Earl of Diddly

Oborosen

Doctor D

JasperL

washunut

Oborosen

Doctor D

Oborosen

Doctor D

JasperL

OpportunityCost

Oborosen

Doctor D

OpportunityCost

Fraggle Rock

Well-known member

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

JasperL

JasperL