Posted on 04/26/2017 3:45:53 PM PDT by lowbridge
President Donald Trump will outline major tax cuts for Americans Wednesday that could take trillions of dollars away from the federal government over the next decade and lump it on to the national debt.
The president will be "pretty broad in the principles" of tax reform that he lays out with more details coming in the summer, his director of legislative affairs, Marc Short, told the Associated Press. But what it boils down to is major hikes in the amount people can deduct from their taxes and large cuts for small businesses and corporations.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
We are talking about taxes and revenues not spending and outlays. The are on opposite sides of the ledger. Apparently you are a financial idiot as well as an historical one. This basic stuff accounting 101. There seems to be no bottom to your lack of basic reasoning and comprehension.
“I bet you would have made that same bet when Clinton raised rates.”
There’s an old economics joke that goes something like this:
A young economist returns to his Alma mater to visit his favourite economics prof. He notices a page of exam questions on the prof’s desk. “Say Professor”, he queries, “aren’t these the same exam questions you asked my class ten years ago. Why haven’t you updated them?”. “Dear boy”, the Prof replies, “the questions never change — but, the answers always do.”
The answers always depend on the prevailing circumstances — which are constantly changing. No one should get too attached to any economics prescriptions. That’s where the leftists go wrong — their answer to everything is: more spending (sometimes it’s ‘tax and spend’, usually deficit spending is involved). Even John Maynard Keynes would not be a ‘Keynesian’, under those terms. He believed in diagnosing the problem, before prescribing a ‘solution’.
The cost and savings are tied together with Obamacare. Repealing or reforming Obamacare should save billions. Those billions in savings will be needed to fund the tax cuts and leave room to build the wall and strengthen the military. It’s a package deal.
One more question. Would you consider the tax plan a failure if it did not turn out to be at least revenue neutral?
I’d rather it cost the government $6 Trillion, than the taxpayers.
Better written as, government steals $6 Trillion less from taxpayers.
Cost the government? Then government IS a cost. On the productive American people.
Newsweek is worried that me and you keeping more of our money is going to cost the government. The government needs to go and get a second job, the shakedown of working people crap isn’t working out so well now
yes, that’s true. But it’s like Obammy said about reducing capital gains taxes “it’s about fairness”
But lowering tax rates won't cost the govt anything. Historically the evidence shows that cutting marginal rates always resulted in INCREASING tax revenues.
Static scoring. But the results will be dynamic.
Almost always historical assertions of this and that find themselves excluding variables.
The 1980s is a pretty clear case. Alaska oil arrived. Exploded onto the scene during the Reagan presidency.
Policy means nothing when oil flows into the system. Oil is everything.
End of discussion.
As a Canadian, I probably should be hoping that it fails. For years Canada had one of the world’s lowest rates of corporate income tax — over 15 points lower than that of the USA. We also had a Conservative government. (Coincidence, I think not.) Now, (under a Liberal government — quelle surprise!) our corporate tax rate has crept higher; but it’s still much lower than the USA’s rate. This low corporate tax rate has been a major (as in Yuge) comparative advantage for Canadian industry. Meanwhile, American international firms are hording many billions of dollars offshore — because they don’t want to pay the exorbitant taxes that would be applied, if they were to repatriate the money.
The Trump tax cuts are likely to be very bad news for Canadian exporting firms — and, no doubt for those in other countries.
What was the question again?? Oh yeah —
First off, I’d wager that, in the short term, there will be a huge windfall of revenue and new money for private-sector investment — due to the repatriation of corporate profits from foreign subsidiaries.
Also, in the short term, these tax cuts should have much the same stimulus effect that the deficit spending leftists always favour (with less-than-stellar results). There are a lot of ifs, ands, and maybes attached to that outcome. Regardless, if the short-term stimulus effects occur, than, no I would not (necessarily) consider the tax cuts to be a failure, if it wound up costing the treasury some money. It would be a matter of comparing the bang-for-the-buck between the two approaches (demand-side “Keynesian” deficit spending, vs. supply-side tax cuts).
Tax cuts could also lead to improving the dynamics of the economy — launching a period of long-term growth. That, of course, is what the supply-siders are betting on. If that happens, government revenues could very well increase too.
I don’t have enough information to feel certain about the outcomes — but, I’m confident that the team of economic advisors Trump has assembled do have the information needed, and they have the smarts to know what to do with it. Overall, I think this is a probably a good move for the USA (and a wake-up call for your trading partners).
Just Curious, if the Government is of, by, and for the people so essentially Government is “We the People”, and if “We the People get a Huge Tax Cut, how does that Cost Government???
Too far to the right of the vertex.
Still less than the $10 trillion Obama cost us.
TRUMP’S PROPOSED TAX PLAN COULD COST THE GOVERNMENT PUT $6 TRILLION IN THE POCKETS OF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS
6 trillion?
WEll the half breed Kenyan cost us 8 trillion and the dems supported it all.
“Tax receipts INCREASE when tax rates decrease”
Then decreasing tax rates is bad and should be opposed.
“I think it will eventually raise revenue to the federal government “
So, is that good or bad?
I think a financial idiot would be someone who looks at only part of the picture. Income tax receipts went up 50% during the period of 1960 to 1968 you say. Well income tax receipts more than doubled over the period 1950 to 1958. The problem with your analysis is that you don't know what that growth in revenue would be absent the tax decrease.
And only a financial idiot would not look at spending and the growth in that. The basic stuff that my Accounting 101 taught me was that if revenue doesn't match expenses then you have trouble. And if your revenue doesn't grow as fast as your expenses then you have more trouble. But maybe we went to different accounting classes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.