Why you’ll pay for Trump’s tax cut

[Stinger]

What caused higher deficits in 2008 and 2009 wasn't anything that Democrats or Republicans did. It was the economy.

Revenues fell dramatically, not expenditures rising.

Spending increased 9% in 2008 and then on top of that 18% in 2009. That's a 29% increase in just two years..............naw that didn't have anything to do with it.

 

[Stinger]

There we have it folks - federal spending is going up and yet the proposed fix is for federal taxation to go down.

The Republicans did not control the budget for FY2008 and FY2009 why do you attribute those spending increase to him and not to the Democrats including Senator and then President Obama who signed the Democrat 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill into law with HIS spending increases included?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The Republicans did not control the budget for FY2008 and FY2009 why do you attribute those spending increase to him and not to the Democrats including Senator and then President Obama who signed the Democrat 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill into law with HIS spending increases included?

Who increased federal spending "in a time of crisis" is not the issue - that the new increased spending level bacame the "baseline" is the problem. That is the crux of the problem - it is not as if budget negotiations start from zero, or even last years revenue, they start from last years spending and generally go up from there.

 

[Deuce]

Who increased federal spending "in a time of crisis" is not the issue - that the new increased spending level bacame the "baseline" is the problem. That is the crux of the problem - it is not as if budget negotiations start from zero, or even last years revenue, they start from last years spending and generally go up from there.

Using revenue as a baseline doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a government like ours to do, because then revenue dips like we saw in 2008 become "oh well I guess we just wont fix roads this year!"

 

[ttwtt78640]

Using revenue as a baseline doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a government like ours to do, because then revenue dips like we saw in 2008 become "oh well I guess we just wont fix roads this year!"

That is true to a small extent but much of what falls into that category is (or should be) deemed mandatory spending. What happens is that when economic times get tough the government tries to "stimulate" us out of the hole by increasing government spending (in many areas) and keeps all other discretionary spending as well and then uses (keeps?) that new spending level as the "baseline". When recessions occur we see a spike in government spending and a dip in revenue and after the recession ends we see revenue return to normal yet spending stays at (or very near) the heightened (crisis?) level of spending.

 

[apdst]

If cutting the corporate tax rates keeps corporations in this country, then it is worth it. Burger King, an American founded corporation is now a Canadian company. They saved a ton of money with that reverse merger. What happens when a company like Walmart does it? Or Apple? How much would we lose in tax dollars?

The Left wants to destroy the private sector. Losing companies is right in line with it's agenda.

 

[Fenton]

Ahem...

Source: CBO


[h=1]The 35 Percent Corporate Tax Myth [/h]

Ill tell you whats not a myth. 2.5 Trillion dollars of US Corporate profits parked in overseas subsidiaries in Nations like Ireland and Canada. Tax inversions are no myth either, so if US Corporate taxes are that low ( they're not especially when you add State taxes ) why are Corporations offshoring Trillions ?

Candada cut theirs and now they're taking advantage of tax revenues earned on American Corporate profits, so is Ireland which is home to Apple's subsidiary

 

[Stinger]

Who increased federal spending "in a time of crisis" is not the issue

Of course it is and should we return to those policies or polices of lower tax rates and restrained spending increases. What do you think?

that the new increased spending level bacame the "baseline" is the problem. That is the crux of the problem - it is not as if budget negotiations start from zero, or even last years revenue, they start from last years spending and generally go up from there.

And Congress makes those decisions sometimes in concert with a sympathetic President. And as we saw the Democrats BY FAR are on the side of increased spending else point to me where Republican controlled spending increased spending 9% let alone following that by an 18% increase.

 

[Southern Dad]

The Left wants to destroy the private sector. Losing companies is right in line with it's agenda.

What happens when CVS does an inversion with a European company? Or Walmart?

 

[Stinger]

Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
Lol ! Corporations have been offshoring their profits for years to avoid the second highest corporate tax rate among developed Nations

Ahem...

Source: CBO

So it's not the second it is the top statutory rate.............even worse.

The 35 Percent Corporate Tax Myth

Yeah it's 39.1%

So do you think it is good for our global economy that we are at or near the top of corporate taxes?

 

[MTAtech]

The Left wants to destroy the private sector. Losing companies is right in line with it's agenda.

That's absurd. Liberals considers the modern welfare state -- a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net, which is morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, liberals believe, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

Conservatives believe that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. This side believes that taxes and regulation are tyrannical impositions on their liberty.

 

[apdst]

That's absurd. Liberals considers the modern welfare state -- a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net, which is morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, liberals believe, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

Conservatives believe that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. This side believes that taxes and regulation are tyrannical impositions on their liberty.

That's wealth redistribution. Straight up communism.

 

[Kushinator]

Spending increased 9% in 2008 and then on top of that 18% in 2009. That's a 29% increase in just two years..............naw that didn't have anything to do with it.

Much of the increase was due to automatic stabilizers that kick in when unemployment and bankruptcy noticeably increase.

For reference:

Eight percent spending growth during a period of economic expansion and is only acceptable when Republicans are completely in charge of government. Say no more... i get it.

 

[Kushinator]

That's wealth redistribution. Straight up communism.

You're incapable of identifying straight up communism. The welfare state is essential in the long-term survival of capitalism.

 

[apdst]

You're incapable of identifying straight up communism. The welfare state is essential in the long-term survival of capitalism.

Is wealth redistribution a part of communism?

 

[Kushinator]

Is wealth redistribution a part of communism?

Sure.

Your turn. Does a welfare state alleviate some of the pain caused by spikes in unemployment?

 

[apdst]

Sure.

Your turn. Does a welfare state alleviate some of the pain caused by spikes in unemployment?

So, I do know communism when I see it. Thanks!

 

[Stinger]

Much of the increase was due to automatic stabilizers that kick in when unemployment and bankruptcy noticeably increase.
Eight percent spending growth during a period of economic expansion and is only acceptable when Republicans are completely in charge of government. Say no more... i get it.

2008 9% was only 9% because Bush threatened to veto any higher and 2009 hit 18% because they got him out of the way and they were quite proud of it. They ran on increased spending and tried their HUGE stimulus spending which failed. Funny how when you guys try to blame Bush it was is Bush/Republican deficit spending but when pointed out the Democrats controlled the budget then it was just automatic increases.

 

[Mycroft]

Why you’ll pay for Trump’s tax cut

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

I have a real problem when I read an article that uses "weasel tactics" to make their point...and this article has a number of them. Here are two examples:

1. They characterize the Tax Policy Center as "non-partisan, mostly liberal". Huh?? Which is it? Non-partisan or mostly liberal?

2. In his proposals, Trump has said nothing about eliminating loopholes that affect individuals...only those affecting businesses. Yet this article pays almost total attention to those mythical individual eliminations.

In any case...

"Exclusion of employer contributions for health insurance $235.8 billion (estimated for 2018)"

This affects businesses. Over 10 years, it's $2.3 trillion. Wait..."Getting to 15% means finding up to $2.4 trillion" (over 10 years).

I don't see the problem.

 

[Kushinator]

So, I do know communism when I see it. Thanks!

Just because cake contains sugar, it doesn't make everything that contains sugar a cake. The logical structure of your argument is inherently flawed.

Care to answer the question you decided to both quote and ignore?

 

[Kushinator]

2008 9% was only 9% because Bush threatened to veto any higher and 2009 hit 18% because they got him out of the way and they were quite proud of it.

Partisan nonsense. The cost of the TARP (tier 1) program was more than 9% of current expenditures. Interestingly enough, the Bush administration worked with Congressional Dems to pass these capital injections into the banking system.

They ran on increased spending and tried their HUGE stimulus spending which failed.

:lol:

If we are going to talk about failure, nothing is more deserving than the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.

Funny how when you guys try to blame Bush it was is Bush/Republican deficit spending but when pointed out the Democrats controlled the budget then it was just automatic increases.

Automatic stabilization policy increases expenditures during periods of increasingly high unemployment. This is simply a matter of fact. As the labor market recovers, expenditure growth will slow, which is shown in the data provided earlier.

 

[apdst]

Just because cake contains sugar, it doesn't make everything that contains sugar a cake. The logical structure of your argument is inherently flawed.

Care to answer the question you decided to both quote and ignore?

You just admitted wealth redistribution is a part of the communist agenda. You called a cake, a cake.

 

[Stinger]

Partisan nonsense. The cost of the TARP (tier 1) program was more than 9% of current expenditures. Interestingly enough, the Bush administration worked with Congressional Dems to pass these capital injections into the banking system.

What is this your wack-a-mole game. You cannot refute what I posted and TARP was paid back with interest.

If we are going to talk about failure, nothing is more deserving than the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.

Yep, they should have used supply-side policies.

Automatic stabilization policy increases expenditures during periods of increasingly high unemployment. This is simply a matter of fact. As the labor market recovers, expenditure growth will slow, which is shown in the data provided earlier.

And the Democrats increased the spending into those programs increased the benefits of those programs as their policies failed to curb or mitigate the effects of the recession and failed to get us into a full recovery and people back to work.

The fact remains the Democrats ran on a huge expansion of government and spending, put that in place and the deficits soared and the economy suffered.

 

[Kushinator]

You just admitted wealth redistribution is a part of the communist agenda. You called a cake, a cake.

Wealth redistribution and communism are not mutually exclusive. You fail by all accounts.

 

[Kushinator]

You cannot refute what I posted and TARP was paid back with interest.

Your statements are not supported by evidence. My point about TARP was that it represented more than 9% of the federal budget.

Yep, they should have used supply-side policies.

Supply side economic policy cannot address the deficiencies of a demand driven economic and financial downturn.

And the Democrats increased the spending into those programs increased the benefits of those programs as their policies failed to curb or mitigate the effects of the recession and failed to get us into a full recovery and people back to work.

Define a full recovery and people back to work. Because by all accounts, the economy and financial system are absolutely recovered.

The fact remains the Democrats ran on a huge expansion of government and spending, put that in place and the deficits soared and the economy suffered.

The U.S. economy was in recession by December 2007. You've yet to provide evidence, let alone construct a coherent argument, that Democrats caused the economic downturn. The U.S. economy experienced slowing GDP growth from 2004 onward, as every single year until 2009, real GDP growth declined.