Trump’s treasury secretary: The tax cut ‘will pay for itself’

[MTAtech]

If liberals would agree to stop increasing spending then the tax rate we have would be adequate.

But government keeps demanding more

Same warning, "when they make assertions about numbers, they should look at the numbers before they make the statement."

Bush was President from 2001 until Jan 2009. Obama was President from Jan 2009 through Jan 2017. Who increased spending more?

 

[Visbek]

If liberals would agree to stop increasing spending then the tax rate we have would be adequate.

But government keeps demanding more

"Liberals" didn't write the budgets or set spending priorities in the Reagan or Bush 41 years.

Conservatives also have this odd habit of increasing military spending, while slashing taxes. Reagan did it, and spent so much, and cut taxes so much, that he had to reverse some of his cuts. Bush 43 cut taxes while waging two wars, policy choices that can only be described as fiscally reckless.

Ironically, almost no one ever cuts. The only times we've seen any actual reductions in federal spending in the post-war era was in 1954 and 2012. And they didn't last long.

 

[Chomsky]

You missed the fact that he signed an EO stopping additional hiring and told the administration that deep cuts are coming. As to who gets tax cuts, it is a little early to judge since there isn't anything on the table for a congressional vote yet. You put yourself among the many "guessers" analyzing the current adminsitration.

Looks like you're misinformed.

Trump quietly rescinded that order, not long after he made a huge hoopla about implementing it! It seems some fell for it.

Source: WT: Trump to end federal agency hiring freeze

 

[MrPeanut]

I can understand the argument for cutting taxes on the middle class and below, but I'll never understand this crazy desire to cut taxes on the wealthy. We know trickle-down economics doesn't work. I get that a lot of people who work on these policies might be influenced by big money to seek out cuts, but the normal people who support crap like this just confuses me.

 

[Chomsky]

I warn people that when they make assertions about numbers, they should look at the numbers before they make the statement.

Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and then raised them because it created a bigger deficit. (These are inflation adjusted per capita revenue, to take population growth into account.)

Bush cut taxes twice (2001 and 2003) and revenue never returned to Clinton's 2000 level during his term. [That blip in 2005-2007 was the housing bubble but even with that, we never got 2000 revenue.]

We wnt through this with Reagan, and had to back-peddle. Then went through this with Bush, and had to back-peddle again. Now we are poised for another round with Trump. Except in Trump's case we have the double-whammy of not only tax cuts for the wealthy, but he wants to spend like mad too!

 

[Chomsky]

I can understand the argument for cutting taxes on the middle class and below, but I'll never understand this crazy desire to cut taxes on the wealthy. We know trickle-down economics doesn't work. I get that a lot of people who work on these policies might be influenced by big money to seek out cuts, but the normal people who support crap like this just confuses me.

It's what happens when you put blatant party partisanship above all else, including your own self interest. We definitely need less parties, and more Americans.

 

[Kushinator]

We wnt through this with Reagan, and had to back-peddle. Then went through this with Bush, and had to back-peddle again. Now we are poised for another round with Trump. Except in Trump's case we have the double-whammy of not only tax cuts for the wealthy, but he wants to spend like mad too!

Both Reagan and Bush spent like mad!

Reagan:

Bush:

 

[Critter7r]

No. I said the opposite. Filling the cabinet with government people would be filling it with more swamp. It is the GOVERNMENT that is the swamp.

So you're not allowed to work in gov't and then leave to immediately go and lobby the department you worked for due to the undue influence your former position may have on the current administration of that department. So what does Trump do?? He takes people that have been lobbying these departments for decades (Education and the EPA, for example) and makes them THE ****ING HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT!!

Genius!!

Evil Genius, to be sure, but, GENIUS nonetheless!!

 

[MTAtech]

No, you can't. You can cut everything from the discretionary budget and still there would be a deficit.

 

[Renae]

Oh please, that's a standard right-wing talking point because your side can't stand Krugman because he's always right.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...ity-wars-debunking-paul-krugman/#4b3ad2c16c56
“Sorry, guys,” Krugman wrote in April that year, “but as a practical matter the Fed—while it should be doing more—can’t make up for contractionary fiscal policy in the face of a depressed economy.” But it did.

Sorry, Paul, but your chicken-soup theory of monetary policy—it probably won’t help, but it couldn’t hurt—is not only frivolous, but wrong. Would you like to see the t-statistic?

https://fee.org/articles/paul-krugman-three-wrongs-dont-make-a-right/

Krugman is never right, and it's idiots like him that wreck economies.

 

[MTAtech]

https://fee.org/articles/paul-krugman-three-wrongs-dont-make-a-right/

Krugman is never right, and it's idiots like him that wreck economies.

I love it when some dude on the internet decides that someone with a Nobel Prize is an idiot, when that Nobel Prize holder accurately predicted lower rates, low inflation, marginal impact from QE and insufficient stimulus.

Fortunately, others note how Dr. K is right.

Business Insider: The Economic Argument Is Over — Paul Krugman Has Won

NIALL FERGUSON: Okay, I Admit It—Paul Krugman Was Right

Hamilton College Study: The top prognosticators – led by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman

HE UK PROVES IT: Krugman And Keynes Were Right!

3 amazingly accurate Paul Krugman predictions from 2011

 

[Renae]

I love it when some dude on the internet decides that someone with a Nobel Prize is an idiot, when that Nobel Prize holder accurately predicted lower rates, low inflation, marginal impact from QE and insufficient stimulus.

Fortunately, others note how Dr. K is right.

Business Insider: The Economic Argument Is Over — Paul Krugman Has Won

NIALL FERGUSON: Okay, I Admit It—Paul Krugman Was Right

Hamilton College Study: The top prognosticators – led by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman

HE UK PROVES IT: Krugman And Keynes Were Right!

3 amazingly accurate Paul Krugman predictions from 2011

Krugman is a moron. Period, a political hack whose ideas are wrong.

 

[MTAtech]

Krugman is a moron. Period, a political hack whose ideas are wrong.

You said that once before. I undercut your argument (such as it was.) Repeating the same baseless assertion doesn't add any weight. It just displays for all that you have no debate ammunition or lucid argument.

 

[Renae]

You said that once before. I undercut your argument (such as it was.) Repeating the same baseless assertion doesn't add any weight. It just displays for all that you have no debate ammunition or lucid argument.

Not in the least did you. Krugman style economics we just went through for 8 years... worst recovery ever, highest debt load ever... huge taxes... worst level of unemployed... Trump and team are going in a direction that is the antithesis of the Krugman line of economics. Tax cuts, spending cuts, regulation rollback. We'll see where we are at the end of the Trump admin.

 

[Helix]

Trump’s treasury secretary: The tax cut ‘will pay for itself’

that index card must be pretty weatherbeaten by now. it's a wonder that they even take it out of vacuum storage these days. i'd recommend putting it under a few inches of tinted glass and only bringing it out for museum tours and other special occasions.

 

[fmw]

So you're not allowed to work in gov't and then leave to immediately go and lobby the department you worked for due to the undue influence your former position may have on the current administration of that department. So what does Trump do?? He takes people that have been lobbying these departments for decades (Education and the EPA, for example) and makes them THE ****ING HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT!!

Genius!!

Evil Genius, to be sure, but, GENIUS nonetheless!!

These are departments that need serious reform. Education needs to be eliminated. Who better to put on the case?

 

[fmw]

Looks like you're misinformed.

Trump quietly rescinded that order, not long after he made a huge hoopla about implementing it! It seems some fell for it.

Source: WT: Trump to end federal agency hiring freeze

That is a disappointment. It is amazing how Washington corrupts everyone.

 

[fmw]

Debt is a problem!

Which is why you don't further deficits by cutting revenue.

No, it is why you want to reduce the cost of government so that it can live within its means.

 

[Rogue Valley]

We've heard that one before and it didn't pay for itself.

No it didn't, and Trump is heading pall-mall down that same forlorn road. In the beginning, Trump & Co. planned to offset the revenue losses from tax reform by creating a border-adjusted tax (BAT) which was considered capable of generating $1 trillion in new revenues over a decade. Corporations and the corporate-friendly GOP however, are loathe to replace the 35% corporate income tax with a BAT 20% tax on U.S. companies domestic sales and imports. This past week a senior WH official said that the BAT would not be included in the tax reform plan Trump would unveil on Wednesday. Without BAT, there is no mechanism for achieving 'revenue neutrality' (balancing tax-revenue losses with tax-revenue gains). Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and others (Gary Cohn, Mick Mulvaney, etc.) say they are focused on economic growth (at the expense of ignoring huge revenue deficits). Mnuchin said that the tax cuts would be fully paid for, but his assurance is more of a hope than a certainty. Without even a modicum of revenue neutrality, Trumps massive tax cuts constitute a yuuge solvency gamble.

 

[Fletch]

[h=1]Trump’s treasury secretary: The tax cut ‘will pay for itself’[/h]We've heard that one before and it didn't pay for itself.


[h=1]Selective Voodoo[/h]

Who cares if it does or not? Deficits don't matter.

 

[countryboy]

No it didn't, and Trump is heading pall-mall down that same forlorn road. In the beginning, Trump & Co. planned to offset the revenue losses from tax reform by creating a border-adjusted tax (BAT) which was considered capable of generating $1 trillion in new revenues over a decade. Corporations and the corporate-friendly GOP however, are loathe to replace the 35% corporate income tax with a BAT 20% tax on U.S. companies domestic sales and imports. This past week a senior WH official said that the BAT would not be included in the tax reform plan Trump would unveil on Wednesday. Without BAT, there is no mechanism for achieving 'revenue neutrality' (balancing tax-revenue losses with tax-revenue gains). Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and others (Gary Cohn, Mick Mulvaney, etc.) say they are focused on economic growth (at the expense of ignoring huge revenue deficits). Mnuchin said that the tax cuts would be fully paid for, but his assurance is more of a hope than a certainty. Without even a modicum of revenue neutrality, Trumps massive tax cuts constitute a yuuge solvency gamble.

Tax cuts rarely cause a loss in revenue. In fact, they usually increase revenue. It's the spending.

 

[Critter7r]

These are departments that need serious reform. Education needs to be eliminated. Who better to put on the case?

The problem is that they'd eliminate the department, and the funding that they send to the states, without replacing that funding or reducing the tax burden. So the states would be left without federal funding, and the people will not be paying any less to the federal gov't.

 

[Chomsky]

That is a disappointment. It is amazing how Washington corrupts everyone.

I don't think it's corruption, as much as Trump getting hit with reality.

Same reason as to why he performed so poorly in his first hundred, and had to back-peddle.

 

[Chomsky]

No it didn't, and Trump is heading pall-mall down that same forlorn road. In the beginning, Trump & Co. planned to offset the revenue losses from tax reform by creating a border-adjusted tax (BAT) which was considered capable of generating $1 trillion in new revenues over a decade. Corporations and the corporate-friendly GOP however, are loathe to replace the 35% corporate income tax with a BAT 20% tax on U.S. companies domestic sales and imports. This past week a senior WH official said that the BAT would not be included in the tax reform plan Trump would unveil on Wednesday. Without BAT, there is no mechanism for achieving 'revenue neutrality' (balancing tax-revenue losses with tax-revenue gains). Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and others (Gary Cohn, Mick Mulvaney, etc.) say they are focused on economic growth (at the expense of ignoring huge revenue deficits). Mnuchin said that the tax cuts would be fully paid for, but his assurance is more of a hope than a certainty. Without even a modicum of revenue neutrality, Trumps massive tax cuts constitute a yuuge solvency gamble.

Gamble? I see fait accompli! :doh

 

[Chomsky]

The problem is that they'd eliminate the department, and the funding that they send to the states, without replacing that funding or reducing the tax burden. So the states would be left without federal funding, and the people will not be paying any less to the federal gov't.

yep.

The fed looks good, the stated gets thrown into turmoil, and the citizens get screwed!