Trump Tax Reform

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
To the surprise of no one who has not drunk deeply from the well of misinformation, corporations are signaling the good times are about to get better. Bloomberg reported that they have no plans for investments that would create jobs and boost spending. They plan to further accommodate their already very comfortable shareholders.

I don't know why Republicans would assume that companies will invest back into their employees. That idea would be more understandable for privately held companies who aren't beholden to shareholders. I heard an interview with Paul Ryan and he was asked about how he will ensure that companies do put money back into their companies and people. He said that they are using tax incentives. It seems that's not very persuasive or doesn't quite apply to everyone.

Maybe the bill should focus the tax cuts on small businesses rather than big corps.
 

Danoh

New member
I don't know why Republicans would assume that companies will invest back into their employees. That idea would be more understandable for privately held companies who aren't beholden to shareholders. I heard an interview with Paul Ryan and he was asked about how he will ensure that companies do put money back into their companies and people. He said that they are using tax incentives. It seems that's not very persuasive or doesn't quite apply to everyone.

Maybe the bill should focus the tax cuts on small businesses rather than big corps.

Years ago, I was involved in a high percentage of my btb, or business to business transactions.

In other words, in contrast to most businesses - who's customers and or clients are the every day consumer - our clients were other businesses.

Some eighteen thousand one on one dealings with all those businesses later, I can still recall very few of them had any real interest in anything but their own bottom line, and how best to lie, cheat, steal their way to a fatter bottom line - all of them long since having become masters at rationalizing their actions towards that, in their minds.

Their employees, also far too often measuring up not much better due to their same infection - "well, that is how the world of business works."

I met very few in all that who actually had a strong sense of right and wrong they simply would not compromise, no matter its cost.

Very, very few.

"Trickle down" is a myth.

Plain and simple.

The lie of the Politician.

It is nothing more than a free hand out to the wealthy.

An encouragement that their corrupt ways in the service of bottom line greed is right.

As a result, we are once more headed for a fraud of a temporarily booming economy that will once more sink us, if not wipe us out financially, this time around.

Because that is what both the typical business owner and politician care about - the short term evil.

And most are just that - the typical.

In that kind of world, the old adage remains the wisdom of choice - the house always wins, so "trust" everyone, but cut the cards yourself.

Even in the world of Scripture, the wisdom of choice is a similar one...

Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
This analysis says that if the tax cuts are actually paid for then lower-income households will be worse off. The rich still get breaks.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...use-republican-tax-plan-deficit-spending-cuts

Officially, the tax bill passed by the US Senate in the early morning hours of December 2 costs $1.45 trillion over 10 years, or $1 trillion after taking into account its effect on economic growth.

Those are the numbers of the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’s official arbiter of tax figures, but skeptics like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget have argued that the true cost is substantially higher. If the many temporary provisions of the bill are made permanent (and Republican senators have insisted they will make them permanent), the true cost is more like $1.6 trillion to $2 trillion, and it continues to mount after 10 years are up.

That bill has to be paid for, somehow. Congress could keep rolling over the debt, yes, but historical experience suggests that tax cuts are typically paid for by tax hikes in the future. Republicans have suggested they want to finance the cuts by slashing entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and food stamps. “We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a radio interview on Wednesday.

Whether you pay for the $1.5 trillion through tax hikes or spending cuts, that financing changes who ultimately wins and loses under the bill. And a new study by the Tax Policy Center suggests that when you take financing into account, the vast majority of Americans lose out.



But...will they be paid for?


Maybe deficits don’t matter
It’s common in economic analysis to assume that the long-run budget deficit a government runs is $0. That is, all budget deficits are eventually financed by budget surpluses in the future, and tax cuts that increase the deficit have to eventually be paid for by tax hikes or spending cuts in the future.

But the “long run” is very long indeed. The US has historically run budget deficits much more often than it’s run surpluses, and the deficits were substantially larger than those rare surpluses as well. Over the span of US history, the country has spent considerably more than it’s taxed.

And maybe that’s okay. The United States isn’t a business whose books need to balance eventually. It’s a permanent government that pays its debts in a currency it controls. If its deficits get too big, that can spur high interest rates and inflation, which have a number of negative consequences. But there have been no signs of either of those problems in recent years.

That’s led a lot of people, like my colleague Matt Yglesias, to grow skeptical of the idea that deficit-financed policies like tax cuts have to be, in some meaningful sense, “paid for.” The Bush tax cuts and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars haven’t really been “paid for” yet in any way. Maybe the Trump tax cuts will be the same.

That’s a fair argument, but it’s not one that Republicans in Congress are making. Their claim, instead, is that they’re going to enact this massive tax cut and then pivot to cutting spending programs, in particular Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps. In that context, it makes sense to consider what such pay-fors would do to the overall distribution of the tax cuts. And what they do is make the tax cuts extremely regressive, and create net tax hikes on the middle class and poor.

 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
This analysis says that if the tax cuts are actually paid for then lower-income households will be worse off. The rich still get breaks.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...use-republican-tax-plan-deficit-spending-cuts

Officially, the tax bill passed by the US Senate in the early morning hours of December 2 costs $1.45 trillion over 10 years, or $1 trillion after taking into account its effect on economic growth.

Those are the numbers of the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’s official arbiter of tax figures, but skeptics like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget have argued that the true cost is substantially higher. If the many temporary provisions of the bill are made permanent (and Republican senators have insisted they will make them permanent), the true cost is more like $1.6 trillion to $2 trillion, and it continues to mount after 10 years are up.

That bill has to be paid for, somehow. Congress could keep rolling over the debt, yes, but historical experience suggests that tax cuts are typically paid for by tax hikes in the future. Republicans have suggested they want to finance the cuts by slashing entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and food stamps. “We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a radio interview on Wednesday.

Whether you pay for the $1.5 trillion through tax hikes or spending cuts, that financing changes who ultimately wins and loses under the bill. And a new study by the Tax Policy Center suggests that when you take financing into account, the vast majority of Americans lose out.



But...will they be paid for?


Maybe deficits don’t matter
It’s common in economic analysis to assume that the long-run budget deficit a government runs is $0. That is, all budget deficits are eventually financed by budget surpluses in the future, and tax cuts that increase the deficit have to eventually be paid for by tax hikes or spending cuts in the future.

But the “long run” is very long indeed. The US has historically run budget deficits much more often than it’s run surpluses, and the deficits were substantially larger than those rare surpluses as well. Over the span of US history, the country has spent considerably more than it’s taxed.

And maybe that’s okay. The United States isn’t a business whose books need to balance eventually. It’s a permanent government that pays its debts in a currency it controls. If its deficits get too big, that can spur high interest rates and inflation, which have a number of negative consequences. But there have been no signs of either of those problems in recent years.

That’s led a lot of people, like my colleague Matt Yglesias, to grow skeptical of the idea that deficit-financed policies like tax cuts have to be, in some meaningful sense, “paid for.” The Bush tax cuts and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars haven’t really been “paid for” yet in any way. Maybe the Trump tax cuts will be the same.

That’s a fair argument, but it’s not one that Republicans in Congress are making. Their claim, instead, is that they’re going to enact this massive tax cut and then pivot to cutting spending programs, in particular Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps. In that context, it makes sense to consider what such pay-fors would do to the overall distribution of the tax cuts. And what they do is make the tax cuts extremely regressive, and create net tax hikes on the middle class and poor.

Be sure to keep searching and finding only negative biased left wing "reports" VOX is notorious for Fake Unproven propagnda.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Disinformation :troll:

:blabla: If it's disinformation then show the right info. :idunno: Otherwise your'e just a troll yelling about fake news with nothing of substance.

I've also posted links from conservative sources in this thread so your comment about only looking for bad info is just off base. You even thanked me for a prior post about it.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers on the right, here I am, stuck in the middle. TOL is more and more a waste of time.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
:blabla: If it's disinformation then show the right info. :idunno: Otherwise your'e just a troll yelling about fake news with nothing of substance.

I've also posted links from conservative sources in this thread so your comment about only looking for bad info is just off base. You even thanked me for a prior post about it.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers on the right, here I am, stuck in the middle. TOL is more and more a waste of time.
It has been, because of liberal bias.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

Notes: Vox is an American advocacy news website run by Vox Media, co-founded by liberal columnists Ezra Klein, Melissa Bell, and Matt Yglesias and launched in April 2014. Vox presents with left wing bias in reporting and story choices. There is some use of loaded words, but most articles are sourced to credible information. (5/15/2016)
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
:blabla: If it's disinformation then show the right info. :idunno: Otherwise your'e just a troll yelling about fake news with nothing of substance.

I've also posted links from conservative sources in this thread so your comment about only looking for bad info is just off base. You even thanked me for a prior post about it.

You and @WizardofOz are consistently objective and nonpartisan, willing to look at both sides and give credit or criticism where it's due, regardless of the source. I've appreciated yours and his thoughtful and objective contributions. And while I appreciate your middle ground, that ground you're standing on is shrinking, and I don't see things getting any better, only worse. Much worse.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers on the right, here I am, stuck in the middle.

I undertstand that you are, and given the current climate it doesn't seem there's much of a chance you'll get unstuck anytime soon.

TOL is more and more a waste of time.

Yeah. It is.
 

WizardofOz

New member
It has been, because of liberal bias.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

Notes: Vox is an American advocacy news website run by Vox Media, co-founded by liberal columnists Ezra Klein, Melissa Bell, and Matt Yglesias and launched in April 2014. Vox presents with left wing bias in reporting and story choices. There is some use of loaded words, but most articles are sourced to credible information. (5/15/2016)

All you're doing is textbook poisoning of the well. It's fallacious to discredit VOX without discrediting the info they are presenting. I couldn't care less what your opinion of the source is. Respond to the information the source is presenting.

screenshot-2017-11-21-at-5-37-58-pm.png
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
All you're doing is textbook poisoning of the well. It's fallacious to discredit VOX without discrediting the info they are presenting. I couldn't care less what your opinion of the source is. Respond to the information the source is presenting.

Exactly. I wouldn't argue strongly against the idea that Vox tends to lean left (the Podcast is definitely left, website seems more balanced) but yelling about the source is pointless. Respond to the information. If you are skeptical of the source and don't want to spend time on it then just don't respond at all.
 
Last edited:

WizardofOz

New member
Exactly. I wouldn't strongly against the idea that Vox tends to lean left (the Podcast is definitely left, website seems more balanced) but yelling about the source is pointless. Respond to the information. If you are skeptical of the source and don't want to spend time on it then just don't respond at all.

Sadly, [MENTION=16629]patrick jane[/MENTION] will take any opportunity he can to :allsmile: about liberals and leftists.

He's about on par with [MENTION=13737]aCultureWarrior[/MENTION] who has homosexuals hiding under his bed and hiding in his closet. :noid:
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
As Republicans and Democrats fight over how they're going to continue raising taxes (under the pretext of lowering them) the real matter in question should be the income tax itself.

For 137 years, American prosperity shook the world because each individual's income was his own.

Then in 1913, the U.S. federal government assumed control of it all. Every dollar earned by every American would belong to the federal government first.

The government would then decide how much each person would be allowed to keep, and under what conditions.

The whole idea is immoral to the core, and the results since the income tax was created should surprise no one...War, Welfare, Debt, Dependency.

Repeal the disaster of 1913.

Dilly Dilly!
 
Last edited:

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Final bill is ready. Looking forward to upcoming analysis. Here's some info about what made the cut and what got left behind.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...reform-cuts-conference-committee-senate-house

Corporations, broadly, are the focus of most of the tax cuts. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation’s analysis of the bill, cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent starting in 2019 costs more than $1.33 trillion over 10 years. The new compromise version increases the rate somewhat to 21 percent, but the cost remains similar, especially because under the new bill the cut begins in 2018, not 2019. Corporations also in many cases gain new, more favorable treatment of income earned abroad, which is either not taxed or taxed at an even lower rate than 21 percent.

Wealthy, particularly ultrawealthy, people tend to earn a disproportionate share of their income from capital (like stock sales and dividends) and thus benefit from cuts to the corporate tax, which is largely a tax on capital. You see this in the TPC analysis above. If the corporate tax also reduces wages, as some conservative economists allege, then corporate cuts still disproportionately help the wealthy, as a huge share of wages go to high earners, not low- or median-wage workers. Additionally, the pass-through tax cut could enable some wealthy people who either own pass-throughs or create new ones to shelter some of their income from high rates.

People making mid- to high six-figure incomes, who arguably should count as wealthy or rich too. Their top income tax rate is reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and they additionally benefit from other individual rate reductions for lower tax brackets. While many face lower tax deductions due to changes in how state and local taxes are treated, they will probably come out ahead overall.

Pass-through companies, like the Trump Organization, which get a new deduction reducing their tax burden. The House-Senate compromise bill allows people with pass-through income to deduct a portion of that income from their taxes; the deduction is for 20 percent of pass-through income, less than the 23 percent under the Senate-passed bill.

Heirs and heiresses, as the estate tax’s exemption is doubled from $5.5 million to $11 million, meaning an even smaller share of the ultrarich will pay the tax — and even those who do pay will pay substantially less than under current law.
But the bill would hurt the poor and increase the deficit

Poor families were rumored to be getting a tax cut due to a change in the refundability formula for the child tax credit — but that didn’t make it into either the House or Senate bill. The credit only goes to families with $3,000 in earnings or more, and phases in slowly; some in Congress were pushing to lower the threshold to $0, but the Senate bill instead lowered it to $2,500, a pretty mild change. Marco Rubio got an extremely minor further expansion of the credit included in the compromise bill, which doesn’t change the situation for very poor people.

Medicaid and insurance subsidy beneficiaries, a group of poor and middle-class people who’d lose benefits without the individual mandate pushing them into insurance. Upper-middle-class people still buying individual insurance would pay higher premiums.

Rich blue-state residents would pay higher taxes, as deductions for state and local taxes are capped at $10,000. That said, wealthy people benefiting from these deductions will likely see this tax hike offset by the other tax cuts in the package.

And it would increase the deficit; the Joint Committee on Taxation scored the Senate-passed bill as costing $1.45 trillion over 10 years, and the cost of the House-Senate compromise bill is likely similar.

Individual income tax rates are adjusted
The seven current individual income tax brackets are changed. In 2017, for a married couple the brackets are: 10 percent (taxable income up to $18,650); 15% ($18,650 to $75,900); 25% ($75,900 to $153,100); 28% ($153,100 to $233,350); 33% ($233,350 to $416,700); 35% ($416,700 to $470,700); 39.6% (taxable income over $470,700)

Under the new plan they’d be: 10% (taxable income up to $19,050); 12% ($19,050 to $77,400); 22% ($77,400 to $165,000); 24% ($165,000 to $315,000); 32% ($315,000 to $400,000); 35% ($400,000 to $600,000); 37% (taxable income over $600,000)

The top rate is cut and the threshold is raised. Most middle-class taxpayers would be in a 12 percent bracket, not 15 percent, and many affluent, upper-middle-class households would be knocked from a 25 percent bracket to 22 percent, or from 33 percent to 24 percent, or from 39.6 percent to 35 percent.

The thresholds for brackets will be adjusted according to chained CPI, a slower-growing measure of inflation than normal CPI, which is used currently; this change raises revenue over time by gradually pushing more and more people into higher tax brackets.


The standard deduction will be raised to $24,000 for couples and $12,000 for individuals, a near doubling from current levels.
The child tax credit will grow from $1,000 to $2,000; only the first 1,400 will be refundable, and access for poor families is not significantly expanded.

The child credit would be available for many more wealthy households: It would start to phase out at $400,000 in earnings for married couples, as opposed to $110,000 under current law.

The personal exemption (currently offering households $4,050 per person in deductions) is eliminated, replaced in theory by the higher child credit, lower rates, and higher standard deduction.

Some deductions are limited, but most remain intact
The mortgage interest deduction is limited to the first $750,000 of a mortgage’s value. This is a compromise between current law (where the limit is $1 million) and the House bill (which lowered that to $500,000).

The deductions for state and local income/sales taxes, and state and local property taxes, are limited to $10,000 total.

Most major tax breaks for individuals — the charitable deduction, retirement incentives like 401(k) and IRA provisions, the tax exclusion for employer-provided health care, the earned income tax credit, and the child and dependent care tax credit — would not be cut.

Major tax breaks that the House bill would’ve eliminated, including the exclusion of tuition waivers for graduate students, the deduction for student loan payments, the medical expense deduction, and the adoption tax credit, are preserved.


The corporate income tax rate will be lowered from 35 percent to 21 percent.

The corporate tax will be “territorial”: Foreign income by US companies will be, in general, tax-free.

All untaxed income currently held overseas will immediately be taxed at a fixed rate, much lower than the current rate, effectively rewarding companies that kept money overseas.

Despite the tax being “territorial” in principle, there will be a “minimum tax” imposed on profits that foreign subsidiaries of US companies earn from intangible assets like patents and copyrights, to prevent companies from moving those assets abroad to avoid taxes, which is a very easy tax evasion move under current law. There’s also a tax on money shifted to overseas subsidiaries.

Instead of having companies “depreciate” investments by deducting them over several years, companies could immediately expense all their investments. This benefit expires after five years, presumably to save money, which dampens any positive effect it has on economic growth.

Companies paying the corporate income tax would face a limit on how much debt they can deduct from their taxable income, a significant change for highly leveraged companies like banks.

Two big existing credits for corporations — the research and development tax credit and the low-income housing credit — won’t be repealed. But a deduction for domestic manufacturing is gone.


“Pass-through” companies like LLCs, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and S corporations, which are overwhelmingly owned by rich individuals like Donald Trump and currently pay normal income tax rates after their earnings are returned to the companies’ owners, would get a number of tax cuts too:

Most taxpayers with pass-through income would be able to deduct 20 percent of that income, effectively lowering the top rate they pay.

To limit the deduction, wealthy people with “service industry” income (think accountants or lawyers) would see the deduction limited.

The deduction creates a huge loophole for rich people, who could incorporate as sole proprietorships and “contract” with their employers so their income is counted as pass-through income rather than wages.

Additionally, the exemption for the estate and gift tax, the most progressive component of the federal tax code, only paid by extremely rich estates, is doubled. The alternative minimum tax for individuals, which limits tax breaks for wealthy taxpayers, is retained in more limited form. And a brand new 1.4 percent tax on university endowment income is added.



 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
As Republicans and Democrats fight over how they're going to continue raising taxes (under the pretext of lowering them) the real matter in question should be the income tax itself.

For 137 years, American prosperity shook the world because each individual's income was his own.

Then in 1913, the U.S. federal government assumed control of it all. Every dollar earned by every American would belong to the federal government first.

The government would then decide how much each person would be allowed to keep, and under what conditions.

The whole idea is immoral to the core, and the results since the income tax was created should surprise no one...War, Welfare, Debt, Dependency.

Repeal the disaster of 1913.

Dilly Dilly!
Are there any taxes that you don't think are immoral to the core?
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Are there any taxes that you don't think are immoral to the core?

Then in 1913, the U.S. federal government assumed control of it all. Every dollar earned by every American would belong to the federal government first.

The government would then decide how much each person would be allowed to keep, and under what conditions.

That's not immoral?
 

SabathMoon

BANNED
Banned
While I do like the tax bill; it is insulting to the middle class. The middle tax still does not get a tax cut among one of the biggest cuts in history. The regressive structure of charging the upper middle class the most, and the non-poor lower middle class the least is also still intact.
 
Top