$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[Frodo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Politico

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, but the question in what areas most of the 1.5 trillion is coming from. If it is coming from Income/Dividends/Capital Gains then this tax plan would be fiscally irresponsible, but if its coming from cutting taxes on Businesses then it is not fiscally irresponsible as you will get that lost revenue back in economic growth.  

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

trih

[Gass3268]

Yes, but the question in what areas most of the 1.5 trillion is coming from. If it is coming from Income/Dividends/Capital Gains then this tax plan would be fiscally irresponsible, but if its coming from cutting taxes on Businesses then it is not fiscally irresponsible as you will get that lost revenue back in economic growth.  

This is a myth. Kansas is the prime example.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, but the question in what areas most of the 1.5 trillion is coming from. If it is coming from Income/Dividends/Capital Gains then this tax plan would be fiscally irresponsible, but if its coming from cutting taxes on Businesses then it is not fiscally irresponsible as you will get that lost revenue back in economic growth.  

This is a myth. Kansas is the prime example.

Yes cause Kansas is not a good state to do businesses in the first place and they dramatically cut income taxes which has a far different affect than cutting corporate taxes. Lastly state taxes are already low compared to federal taxes so according to the Laffer Curve that would cause you to lose revenue.

[Virginiá]

Yes, but the question in what areas most of the 1.5 trillion is coming from. If it is coming from Income/Dividends/Capital Gains then this tax plan would be fiscally irresponsible, but if its coming from cutting taxes on Businesses then it is not fiscally irresponsible as you will get that lost revenue back in economic growth.

That seems like a highly simplistic way to look at it. The size of the tax cuts matter, as does exactly where the cuts are. The expiration date(s) (if any) of the cuts also matter - If this plan sees cuts expire after 10 years, then that even goes against Paul Ryan's own excuses, that the expiration of Bush tax cuts gave businesses uncertainty of what the tax code would look like in the future and thus hampered investment, and that future tax cuts need to last longer to "spur growth."

Republicans have been pushing this supply side hooey for decades now and you guys are still leaning on "magic logic" to justify them because there is no clear evidence you can provide that these cuts will pay for themselves or juice the economy like you say. When in doubt, just say it'll pay for itself with growth and thus no one can argue with you because it'll happen far in the future.


Here is something else as well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/28/i-helped-create-the-gop-tax-myth-trump-is-wrong-tax-cuts-dont-equal-growth/

I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong: Tax cuts don’t equal growth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry, but you guys owe America more than what basically amounts to a "trust us, everything will work beautifully" explanation to justify 1.5 trillion dollars in tax cuts, of which the wealthy and need-nots stand to benefit greatly. America also deserves a tax bill this expensive that isn't rammed through party-line at breakneck speed.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The 1980s tax cuts did create economic growth , and the reason for the deficits were not cause of the tax cuts but because of the spending increases .


Here look at the total tax revenue per year and look at the 1980s : https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762 . It's clear that it was the increas in spending what caused the deficits not the tax cuts . Also the economy did grow from 1986 -1990 just look at the increase in revenue during those years .

Lastly on the increase in revenue over a decade :


In the 1980s revenue went up from 517 billion to  991 billion which is an increase of 91.68 percent

In 1990s revenue went up from 1.03 trillion to 1.82 trillion which is an increase of 79 percent , and even if you include 2000 numbers tax revenue went up by 97.08 percent .


That means despite the tech boom of the 1990s the increase of revenue was barely more then the increase in the 1980s and that is if you include the 2000 numbers .

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The 1980s tax cuts did create economic growth , and the reason for the deficits were not cause of the tax cuts but because of the spending increases .


Here look at the total tax revenue per year and look at the 1980s : https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762 . It's clear that it was the increas in spending what caused the deficits not the tax cuts . Also the economy did grow from 1986 -1990 just look at the increase in revenue during those years .

Lastly on the increase in revenue over a decade :


In the 1980s revenue went up from 517 billion to  991 billion which is an increase of 91.68 percent

In 1990s revenue went up from 1.03 trillion to 1.82 trillion which is an increase of 79 percent , and even if you include 2000 numbers tax revenue went up by 97.08 percent .


That means despite the tech boom of the 1990s the increase of revenue was barely more then the increase in the 1980s and that is if you include the 2000 numbers .

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The 1980s tax cuts did create economic growth , and the reason for the deficits were not cause of the tax cuts but because of the spending increases .


Here look at the total tax revenue per year and look at the 1980s : https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762 . It's clear that it was the increas in spending what caused the deficits not the tax cuts . Also the economy did grow from 1986 -1990 just look at the increase in revenue during those years .

Lastly on the increase in revenue over a decade :


In the 1980s revenue went up from 517 billion to  991 billion which is an increase of 91.68 percent

In 1990s revenue went up from 1.03 trillion to 1.82 trillion which is an increase of 79 percent , and even if you include 2000 numbers tax revenue went up by 97.08 percent .


That means despite the tech boom of the 1990s the increase of revenue was barely more then the increase in the 1980s and that is if you include the 2000 numbers .

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

Lmao the tax cuts weren't why economic crash happened, it was the repeal of glass stegall and keeping interest rates artificially low throught the 2000s.


Also the deficits under Bush were mainly for these two things : Iraq War , and more than doubling military spending in the 2000s(https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/).


The budget deficit in 2006 and 2007(years which the tax cuts had been fully implemented by ) were 248 billion and 161 billion and without the Iraq war and if you had a slight instead of a massive increase in military spending the budget would have been balenced .

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

This is at least the second time in the last couple weeks you have tried to connect the Bush tax cuts to the Financial Crisis. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about because those are totally unrelated to each other. Stop.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The 1980s tax cuts did create economic growth , and the reason for the deficits were not cause of the tax cuts but because of the spending increases .


Here look at the total tax revenue per year and look at the 1980s : https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762 . It's clear that it was the increas in spending what caused the deficits not the tax cuts . Also the economy did grow from 1986 -1990 just look at the increase in revenue during those years .

Lastly on the increase in revenue over a decade :


In the 1980s revenue went up from 517 billion to  991 billion which is an increase of 91.68 percent

In 1990s revenue went up from 1.03 trillion to 1.82 trillion which is an increase of 79 percent , and even if you include 2000 numbers tax revenue went up by 97.08 percent .


That means despite the tech boom of the 1990s the increase of revenue was barely more then the increase in the 1980s and that is if you include the 2000 numbers .

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

Lmao the tax cuts weren't why economic crash happened, it was the repeal of glass stegall and keeping interest rates artificially low throught the 2000s.


Also the deficits under Bush were mainly for these two things : Iraq War , and more than doubling military spending in the 2000s(https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/).


The budget deficit in 2006 and 2007(years which the tax cuts had been fully implemented by ) were 248 billion and 161 billion and without the Iraq war and if you had a slight instead of a massive increase in military spending the budget would have been balenced .

Keep in mind that that the Budgets prior to the Dems taking back control of Congress in 2006 didn't include Iraq, since it was constantly being funded through emergency funding bills so as to lower the top line deficit.

That said you are right, the tax cuts were basically money pushing on a string because the banks locked up tight beginning in the summer of 2007 due to the credit crunch. Cheap easy money was not just coming from the Fed, but the asset valuations from the derivatives market as well and when the housing market crash occurred, those valuations began to crash and rather then being an asset that could be borrowed against, became an anchor on those same firms. This in turn led to the credit crunch in mid 2007, and nobody at the time appreciated what was coming unglued. 

The credit crunch then crippled both the back to school and Christmas shopping seasons in the Fall and Winter of 2007 and pushed the general economy into a recession beginning in December 2007.

Glass-Steagall alone didn't lead to this situation, but it was a part of it and the consolidation of firms into giant "too big to fail banks" is very dangerous. Because suddenly the collateral damage becomes the US economy, when the market acts to correct their mistakes.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

This is at least the second time in the last couple weeks you have tried to connect the Bush tax cuts to the Financial Crisis. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about because those are totally unrelated to each other. Stop.

Both parties share blame for the recession. But the Bush tax cuts, which are mostly irrelevant to this, ballooned the deficit. It is fiscally irresponsible to expend hundreds of billions of dollars on new foreign wars and simultaneously cut taxes heavily on the other end. What, is there a magic money tree?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

This is at least the second time in the last couple weeks you have tried to connect the Bush tax cuts to the Financial Crisis. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about because those are totally unrelated to each other. Stop.

Both parties share blame for the recession. But the Bush tax cuts, which are mostly irrelevant to this, ballooned the deficit. It is fiscally irresponsible to expend hundreds of billions of dollars on new foreign wars and simultaneously cut taxes heavily on the other end. What, is there a magic money tree?

There was a bipartisan desire to stimulate the economy out of the 2001 recession. That is why a big chunk of the tax cut passed, despite Dems controlling the Senate. The rest of it was rammed in 2003 when the Republicans regained the Senate.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

This is at least the second time in the last couple weeks you have tried to connect the Bush tax cuts to the Financial Crisis. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about because those are totally unrelated to each other. Stop.

Both parties share blame for the recession. But the Bush tax cuts, which are mostly irrelevant to this, ballooned the deficit. It is fiscally irresponsible to expend hundreds of billions of dollars on new foreign wars and simultaneously cut taxes heavily on the other end. What, is there a magic money tree?

There was a bipartisan desire to stimulate the economy out of the 2001 recession. That is why a big chunk of the tax cut passed, despite Dems controlling the Senate. The rest of it was rammed in 2003 when the Republicans regained the Senate.

I wonder how things might have looked like if JGTRRA never passed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

This is at least the second time in the last couple weeks you have tried to connect the Bush tax cuts to the Financial Crisis. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about because those are totally unrelated to each other. Stop.

The Bush Tax cuts were sold as an economic stimulus, which was obviously an epic fail.

[mvd10]

Yes, but the question in what areas most of the 1.5 trillion is coming from. If it is coming from Income/Dividends/Capital Gains then this tax plan would be fiscally irresponsible, but if its coming from cutting taxes on Businesses then it is not fiscally irresponsible as you will get that lost revenue back in economic growth.  

This is a myth. Kansas is the prime example.

The main problem with Kansas was that they exempted pass-through businesses from the income tax which caused a lot of tax avoidance. The GOP plan also does this though. The top rate on normal income would be 35% while the top rate on pass-throughs would be 25%. If I were a wealthy architect or lawyer I'd definitely become an independent contractor in that case. Helping small businesses is a good thing, but I think they should look for better ways.

If they really reform the tax code (lower corporate tax rates, broader base, more equal treatment of debt and equity, etc) I don't think a $1.5 trillion tax cut would be a huge problem, especially if they offset (part of) it by spending cuts, or if they make the doubling of the standard deduction temporary.

But I don't think temporary full expensing is a good idea. It will cost a lot of revenue in the next 5 years, without doing much except for getting businesses to move some of their investments forward. That's good when you're in a recession, but the US isn't in a recession. If they wanted a more friendly tax treatment of capital investments they could have adjusted depreciation schedules to an interest rate to offset inflation or the time value of money. That way it would have the same effect as full expensing, but instead of costing a boatload of money in the first few years the costs would slowly phase in. Temporary tax cuts usually aren't really a good idea unless you're in a recession and need an immediate stimulus (in that case spending would be even better though).

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

This is at least the second time in the last couple weeks you have tried to connect the Bush tax cuts to the Financial Crisis. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about because those are totally unrelated to each other. Stop.

Both parties share blame for the recession. But the Bush tax cuts, which are mostly irrelevant to this, ballooned the deficit. It is fiscally irresponsible to expend hundreds of billions of dollars on new foreign wars and simultaneously cut taxes heavily on the other end. What, is there a magic money tree?

I'm not defending the tax cuts -- they obviously were incredibly irresponsible and ideologically motivated. But the harm they caused and the harm the deregulation of the financial industry (which, you are right, both sides share blame for) caused are totally separate from each other. Anybody drawing a causal link between them is lacking basic economic literacy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, that is fine. I can accept that. But stop trying to suggest that the tax cuts somehow caused the recession because it makes you lose all credibility.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I would put a rule though that makes business which have less then 5 employees pay taxes at the income level. For Business which have more then 5 employees they should pay at the Small Business/Corporate Level

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

This is at least the second time in the last couple weeks you have tried to connect the Bush tax cuts to the Financial Crisis. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about because those are totally unrelated to each other. Stop.

Both parties share blame for the recession. But the Bush tax cuts, which are mostly irrelevant to this, ballooned the deficit. It is fiscally irresponsible to expend hundreds of billions of dollars on new foreign wars and simultaneously cut taxes heavily on the other end. What, is there a magic money tree?

I'm not defending the tax cuts -- they obviously were incredibly irresponsible and ideologically motivated. But the harm they caused and the harm the deregulation of the financial industry (which, you are right, both sides share blame for) caused are totally separate from each other. Anybody drawing a causal link between them is lacking basic economic literacy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, that is fine. I can accept that. But stop trying to suggest that the tax cuts somehow caused the recession because it makes you lose all credibility.

I didn't say they caused the recession, but the fact that we had the worst recession in 80 years when they mostly took effect meant that they were epic fail for an economic stimulus.

[Skill and Chance]

If Dems were smart, they would run against this as "robbing the cities to pay for the countryside."  Let's see how all those Clinton-Republican districts feel about not being able to deduct their state taxes any more.

[mvd10]

If Dems were smart, they would run against this as "robbing the cities to pay for the countryside."  Let's see how all those Clinton-Republican districts feel about not being able to deduct their state taxes any more.

A large part of them still would receive a tax cut though. 79% of taxpayers in the fourth quintile and 67% of taxpayers in the top quintile would receive a tax cut. I guess these numbers are significantly lower in NY or NJ but it's not like all of them would see a massive tax increase.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I'm not a supply-sider, so I don't support this crap.

Tax Reform is a Never-Never-Land issue.  That's because every single tax deduction enacted has a massive team of lobbyists standing ready to preserve and defend it, courtesy of the special interest that deduction benefits.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

This is at least the second time in the last couple weeks you have tried to connect the Bush tax cuts to the Financial Crisis. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about because those are totally unrelated to each other. Stop.

The Bush Tax cuts were sold as an economic stimulus, which was obviously an epic fail.

It was sold as an economic stimulus to the early 2000s recession , which indeed it was . The 2008 crash still would have happened without the tax cuts , so no the tax cuts and the crash are not related.

[Badger]

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

This is at least the second time in the last couple weeks you have tried to connect the Bush tax cuts to the Financial Crisis. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about because those are totally unrelated to each other. Stop.

The Bush Tax cuts were sold as an economic stimulus, which was obviously an epic fail.

It was sold as an economic stimulus to the early 2000s recession , which indeed it was . The 2008 crash still would have happened without the tax cuts , so no the tax cuts and the crash are not related.

You are one delusional spoiled rich kid, know that?

[Idaho Conservative]

My issue is that if you cut taxes, you need to cut spending correspondingly.  Fail to do that is like taking a pay cut and not altering your lifestyle.  Tax cuts without spending cuts are not fiscally conservative by any means.  It is amazing how the national debt is the single biggest issue we face but the Democrats don't even care and Republicans pay lip service to it but then go ahead any drive us deeper into debt anyway.