Mnuchin Scams the Tax-Cuts, claims they pay for themselves

MTAtech · Dec 12, 2017

Rogue Valley said:
The first few years is when growth (burst) would likely happen. After that, a pause and retrograde movement to recession. Perhaps severe.

Corporations are already sitting on trillions of dollars. Expansion/increased-employment is far down most CEO to-do list. Mgmt/shareholders always come first.

Yes, corporations are already sitting on trillions of dollars. According to the GOP theory, they need even more trillions if we want them to invest or hire more people. It makes no sense.

MTAtech · Dec 12, 2017

ludin said:
Yes they are sitting on trillions that should be used to promote growth.
That is what this tax bill will do.

Next it will help promote small businesss to grow and expand.
That is the needed effect. Corporations are the the baseline saturated level.
What you need is the guy with 10 employees to go to 30-50-100 employees.

Ah, it's about small businesses with 10 employees. That must be why private jet owners get a new break and golf course owners get goodies too.

MTAtech · Dec 12, 2017

ludin said:
80% of middle class. And low income people will get a tax decrease.
Why do you keep not telling the truth?

It doesn't throw anyone off health insurance another lie. It simply repeals the individual mandate which means people
Aren't forced to buy a product not that they should be forced to buy a product in a free country anyway.

False.

Senate tax bill would cut taxes of wealthy and increase taxes on families earning less than $75,000 by 2027

Sure, "it simply repeals the individual mandate which means people" can't afford to buy health insurance because of skyrocketing premium costs. An analogy is like saying "I just choose to not buy a Rolls Royce," not "I don't buy a Rolls Royce because I can't afford one."

iguanaman · Dec 12, 2017

ludin said:
your graph shows that it can be done and it has been done.
again the CBO doesn't predict economic growth it can't. In fact no one can.

If people could predict the market and the economy we could easily avoid recessions.

LOL But this topic is about the Treasury PREDICTING 2.9% average growth for a decade. You agree that prediction is ridiculous then? Remember you said that no one can predict.

iguanaman · Dec 12, 2017

jonny5 said:
Thats certainly ONE way jobs are created. Theyre also created when employers expand operations and innovate ways to turn idle labor into wealth and resources. Which can then be traded. Such tax cuts will partly go into production activities, and some will go to bonuses (to be spend in demand), buy backs (which puts the money in sellers hands to be used for demand), increased shareholdings (which means buying stock from someone who will then use the cash to demand), etc.

Since the alternative is everyone continuing to give trillions to the govt to waste, which doesnt create jobs, I think the choice is obvious here.

Since this bill will crater revenues it will also inevitably cut Govt. spending which creates jobs and increases demand. Giving away money to those that already spend all they want will not increase demand only the nest eggs of the wealthy.

jonny5 · Dec 12, 2017

MTAtech said:
False.

Senate tax bill would cut taxes of wealthy and increase taxes on families earning less than $75,000 by 2027

Sure, "it simply repeals the individual mandate which means people" can't afford to buy health insurance because of skyrocketing premium costs. An analogy is like saying "I just choose to not buy a Rolls Royce," not "I don't buy a Rolls Royce because I can't afford one."

Not false.

Compared to current law, taxes would fall for all income groups on average in 2019, increasing overall average after-tax income by 1.6 percent.

Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act | Tax Policy Center

But im sure youre as tired as I am of having the same argument over and over. Just accept that your taxes are going down. Donate the extra money to your favorite liberal cause.

jonny5 · Dec 12, 2017

MTAtech said:
Ah, it's about small businesses with 10 employees. That must be why private jet owners get a new break and golf course owners get goodies too.

Private jet owners do not get a new break. Also

https://www.snopes.com/does-the-rep...de-a-loophole-benefitting-golf-course-owners/

ludin · Dec 12, 2017

MTAtech said:
Ah, it's about small businesses with 10 employees. That must be why private jet owners get a new break and golf course owners get goodies too.

your non-response is noted.

ludin · Dec 12, 2017

MTAtech said:
False.

Senate tax bill would cut taxes of wealthy and increase taxes on families earning less than $75,000 by 2027

Sure, "it simply repeals the individual mandate which means people" can't afford to buy health insurance because of skyrocketing premium costs. An analogy is like saying "I just choose to not buy a Rolls Royce," not "I don't buy a Rolls Royce because I can't afford one."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ook-like-for-25000-middle-class-families.html

not false but true.

the invidual mandate has nothing to do with affording healthcare.

premiums have already been skyrocketing and they have been since obamacare was implemented.
i didn't hear you ranting then.

of course don't force people to buy obamacare and OMG the sky is falling.

Is Obamacare really affordable? Not for the middle class. - Nov. 4, 2016
they can't afford the so called "affordable care act."

MTAtech · Dec 12, 2017

jonny5 said:
Private jet owners do not get a new break. Also

https://www.snopes.com/does-the-rep...de-a-loophole-benefitting-golf-course-owners/

Snopes rates it TRUE. I thought the GOP was going to get rid of loopholes? Sure they were.

haymarket · Dec 12, 2017

MTAtech said:
Treasury released a one-pay document, that says that the tax-cuts will pay for themselves, contrary to every analysis of the tax bill.

How did he do it? It's easy, make unfounded assumptions about economic growth. By the way, this report, such as it is, wasn't done by the over 100 people in Treasury “working around the clock on running scenarios for us.” It just seems to be made up and there wasn't any staff assigned to any major analysis.

[h=1]Mr. Mnuchin’s Magical Math on Taxes[/h]

Paul Krugman weighed in too:

[h=1]Steve Mnuchin Pulls a Paul Ryan[/h]

Just the latest example of the Trump administration laziness and propensity to lie their ass off saying anything just to get to tomorrow.

MTAtech · Dec 12, 2017

ludin said:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ook-like-for-25000-middle-class-families.html

not false but true.

the invidual mandate has nothing to do with affording healthcare.

premiums have already been skyrocketing and they have been since obamacare was implemented.
i didn't hear you ranting then.

of course don't force people to buy obamacare and OMG the sky is falling.

Is Obamacare really affordable? Not for the middle class. - Nov. 4, 2016
they can't afford the so called "affordable care act."

Insurance works by having a pool of health and sick insured. Without the mandate and requiring that preexisting conditions are covered, that means people can stay uninsured until they get sick and then buy insurance. Under those conditions, it causes a rate spiral, by making the pool of insured sicker and sicker, driving more healthy people out, driving the rates even higher.

JasperL · Dec 12, 2017

MTAtech said:
Snopes rates it TRUE. I thought the GOP was going to get rid of loopholes? Sure they were.

Well, sure, like when your employer says "You've been transferred from NY to LA" and then pays for the move. The "loophole" that allowed you to deduct the costs of a move dictated to you by your employer is gone and the cost of it is now taxable income.

But if you want to give a sham "conservation easement" and donate the amount as a charitable deduction, you're good to go.

We can see who wrote this POS and it's lobbyists and errand boys for the donor class. They got their Christmas list nearly entirely checked off. Thanks Republican Santa!

ludin · Dec 12, 2017

MTAtech said:
Insurance works by having a pool of health and sick insured. Without the mandate and requiring that preexisting conditions are covered, that means people can stay uninsured until they get sick and then buy insurance. Under those conditions, it causes a rate spiral, by making the pool of insured sicker and sicker, driving more healthy people out, driving the rates even higher.

again you ignored the articles that i posted.

the individual mandate did nothing to lower premium costs as premiums have never gone down under obamacare.

Obamacare not attracting enough young, healthy people - Modern Healthcare

that is already the case. the young healthy people aren't stupid. they know a bad deal when they see it.

MTAtech · Dec 12, 2017

ludin said:
again you ignored the articles that i posted.

the individual mandate did nothing to lower premium costs as premiums have never gone down under obamacare.

Obamacare not attracting enough young, healthy people - Modern Healthcare

that is already the case. the young healthy people aren't stupid. they know a bad deal when they see it.

Maybe so, but eliminating the mandate just makes it worse, as doctors are saying:

In a letter on Tuesday, groups representing doctors, hospitals and insurers urged congressional leaders to keep the individual mandate in place. The groups, which included the American Medical Association and America’s Health Insurance Plans, wrote that “eliminating the individual mandate by itself likely will result in a significant increase in premiums, which would in turn substantially increase the number of uninsured Americans.”

jonny5 · Dec 13, 2017

MTAtech said:
Snopes rates it TRUE. I thought the GOP was going to get rid of loopholes? Sure they were.

Its true that it existed BEFORE this tax bill.

Though it is true the deduction in question benefits golf course owners like President Donald Trump, it precedes his administration.

and

To receive the tax break, a land deed is amended to include a “conservation easement” that is binding on “current and future owners of the easement and the underlying property.” The easement is then “donated” to a government agency or a nonprofit land trust.

Seems only fair to get just compensation in the form of a tax break when you give your land to the govt. But hey, I agree with you, this tax bill doesnt go far enough.

Critter7r · Dec 13, 2017

ludin said:
Yes they are sitting on trillions that should be used to promote growth.
That is what this tax bill will do.

Next it will help promote small businesss to grow and expand.
That is the needed effect. Corporations are the the baseline saturated level.
What you need is the guy with 10 employees to go to 30-50-100 employees.

When demand increases, he will do that regardless of tax policy.

JasperL · Dec 13, 2017

jonny5 said:
Its true that it existed BEFORE this tax bill.

and

Seems only fair to get just compensation in the form of a tax break when you give your land to the govt. But hey, I agree with you, this tax bill doesnt go far enough.

The problem is conservation easements have become a hot new avenue for straight up tax fraud. If you're interested, here's a good article by Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterj...onservation-easement-deductions/#68a7cdfe6b33

Abuse of the tax benefits of conservation easements has reached a fever pitch as easement donations are now syndicated at multiples of nine to one and above. Put $100,000 into the syndication black box and take out a charitable contribution of $900,000 a year or two late. And wrap yourself in a green flag to defend the travesty.

And these clear and obvious abuses, tax fraud, are in addition to the routine abuses of taking some land you own and have no intention of ever developing, often because it's unsuitable for development, then "contributing" an "easement" to a charity that prohibits you from not doing what you would not or even could not do with that land, and taking a deduction for it. There's a good example behind my house. The land floods constantly with every really heavy rain - every year or two it's 2 or 3 feet under water - and cannot be developed for housing. Well, the owner might contribute an "easement" to a charity to preserve it as a wetland, which of course is what he already has to do because no one would build on this property because of the flooding and because it's isolated between a bunch of other houses, then get a bogus appraisal of it at inflated values similar to adjacent land that's not in the flood plain.

What if...? · Dec 13, 2017

ludin said:
Of course you don't they are the evil people that must be punished. They must have stolen it from someone and it is the governments job to take it back.

The rich already pretty much pay all of the income taxes collected.

Because they get the most income.

What if...? · Dec 13, 2017

jonny5 said:
Not false.

But im sure youre as tired as I am of having the same argument over and over. Just accept that your taxes are going down. Donate the extra money to your favorite liberal cause.

So about $900 at my income level.

Whoopee!

And I get to watch the poor suffer more!

What's not to like?

What if...? · Dec 13, 2017

ludin said:
again you ignored the articles that i posted.

the individual mandate did nothing to lower premium costs as premiums have never gone down under obamacare.

Obamacare not attracting enough young, healthy people - Modern Healthcare

that is already the case. the young healthy people aren't stupid. they know a bad deal when they see it.

We should let them drive without liability insurance too.

Wouldn't want to force anybody to do anything that they don't want to do.

Same thing. Good drivers who never get in accidents pay for those who do.

Critter7r · Dec 13, 2017

What if...? said:
We should let them drive without liability insurance too.

Wouldn't want to force anybody to do anything that they don't want to do.

Same thing. Good drivers who never get in accidents pay for those who do.

Exactly. But you are required by law to have car insurance.

Que the "It's unconstitutional to force me to have insurance just for being alive!!" comments.

And to that I say, "GREAT!! Let's have Medicare for All."

jonny5 · Dec 14, 2017

JasperL said:
The problem is conservation easements have become a hot new avenue for straight up tax fraud. If you're interested, here's a good article by Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterj...onservation-easement-deductions/#68a7cdfe6b33

And these clear and obvious abuses, tax fraud, are in addition to the routine abuses of taking some land you own and have no intention of ever developing, often because it's unsuitable for development, then "contributing" an "easement" to a charity that prohibits you from not doing what you would not or even could not do with that land, and taking a deduction for it. There's a good example behind my house. The land floods constantly with every really heavy rain - every year or two it's 2 or 3 feet under water - and cannot be developed for housing. Well, the owner might contribute an "easement" to a charity to preserve it as a wetland, which of course is what he already has to do because no one would build on this property because of the flooding and because it's isolated between a bunch of other houses, then get a bogus appraisal of it at inflated values similar to adjacent land that's not in the flood plain.

Like I said, Im all for getting rid of all deductions, credits, etc. Just pointing out that this is not a new thing.

jonny5 · Dec 14, 2017

What if...? said:
So about $900 at my income level.

Whoopee!

And I get to watch the poor suffer more!

What's not to like?

How are the poor suffering more under this bill by still not paying any taxes? If you dont like your $900 though, donate it to them.

washunut · Dec 14, 2017

Critter7r said:
Exactly. But you are required by law to have car insurance.

Que the "It's unconstitutional to force me to have insurance just for being alive!!" comments.

And to that I say, "GREAT!! Let's have Medicare for All."

To try and educate What If and yourself. Having liability insurance is not to protect the driver, but to protect anyone who might be hurt or have damage due to your driving.

Always find it so sad that folks are so easily duped by campaign slogans.