Posted on 05/11/2016 6:18:33 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Donald Trump's campaign has enlisted influential conservative economists to revise his tax package and make it more politically palatable by slashing the $10 trillion sticker price. Their main targets: Lifting the top tax rate from Trump's original plan and expanding the number of people who would have to pay taxes under it.
Trump's initial proposal, rolled out with fanfare at Trump Tower in Manhattan last September, has been in the spotlight since he became the presumptive Republican nominee last week and promptly declared that it was only a starting point for any negotiations with congressional Democrats, should he become president. Story Continued Below
But it turns out Trump's team is open to revamping it far sooner than that; the campaign last month contacted at least two prominent conservative economists -- Larry Kudlow, the CNBC television host, and Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation and a longtime Wall Street Journal writer -- to spearhead an effort to update the package.
"What we've been trying to do is help advise him a little bit to try to reduce the cost of the plan" and still encourage economic growth, Moore said in an interview.
Trump's initial plan has come under criticism from both the right and left for vastly expanding the deficit, with the nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimating it would add $10 trillion to the federal deficit in the next decade. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has moved quickly to tattoo the plan's steep price tag onto Trump, with her team holding a call on Monday calling it a reckless expansion of debt.
"This is the most risky, restless and regressive tax proposal ever put forward by a major presidential candidate," one of President Obama's former top economic advisers, Gene Sperling, said on the Clinton campaign call.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I think everyone understood going in that none of Mr. Trump’s proposals or policy statements were set in stone.
Excellent.
OK, mistake #1 in my book. Tax cuts do NOT have a cost, as has been demonstrated more than once in our fairly recent past. Assuming that tax cuts have a negative impact on the economy is only surrendering a fundamental point to the Keynesians/progressives, i.e., that tax cuts have to be “paid for”.
What cost? Get rid of the EPA, turn the Education Dept over to the States, repeal the regulations that have hindered growth, allow the two trillion dollars of corporate offshore profits sitting in overseas banks to come home at a very small amnesty tax rate and enact the Penny Plan. This will more than cover the costs with a boom in economic activity, resulting in increased revenues to the Treasury.
Yup - you beat me to it!
taxpayers should include ALL people, not just 40%. If one pays, ALL pay.
>none of Mr. Trump’s proposals or policy statements were set in stone.
And, just about every major issue every candidate talks about is up to Congress. The proposals and policy statements are directions they want congress to go. And hopefully will work with congress to make sure they go in that direction and actually get something done.
Exactly!
Tax cuts more than pay for themselves.
Reagan had a top rate of 28%. When Reagan took office, the IRS was taking in $500 billion a year. When he left office eight years later, the IRS was taking in $950 billion a year.
The deficits were caused by increased government spending by the democrat controlled House....the dems controlled the House during the entire eight years of Reagan....and the fact that we had to rebuild our military, which suffered under Carter and previous administrations. Peace through strength.
Libs always say, “how are we going to pay for it?” when it comes to tax cuts, but they NEVER ask “how are we going to pay for it?” when it comes to a new or expanded government program.
Education is inherently a local affair--between teacher & student. The Feds get into it, to satisfy the Egalitarian/Collectivist mentality, which wants everything uniform; that wants to make sure that a more successful community does not give its children the natural advantage that they would otherwise, quite properly, expect. It also allows those such as Obama, who hate traditional American culture, to throw impediments into our passing on traditional culture--and the specific local nuances of traditional culture.
It also, manifestly, creates an expense burden on State & local institutions--and draws teachers out of the class-room into the bureaucracy, as States ramp up their departments to interact with the Federal, and the communities ramp up their departments to interact with both the increased State & Federal bureaucracies. The whole thing is akin to a "keystone cops" absurdity.
Trump for President.
Dear Sync,
first, “Disbanding the EPA and the DoE will not balance the budget”. It is not just disbanding the agencies. It is the deletion of the federal employees’ positions that need to be done at the same time, otherwise, all those employees’ have the opportunity, as i did when the V.A. New Orleans downsized after Hurricane Katrina, could seek to fill any openings across the country in other agencies. That will place some on the retirement rolls, and the rest out in the wind, but in either case, off the unemployment opportunity lists because their position was deleted, and they were not ‘fired’ or ‘displaced’. (Also a blow to the fed employee unions by no ‘participation donations’ by the members.)
second, with that disbanding, think of all that real estate that goes up for sale, since it is no longer needed, and the monies recouped from that. Also, all the interior furnishings go off to auction, electronics and all. More recouped monies. Lastly, all the maintenance costs of the buildings and utilities.
Tax cuts, under certain extreme conditions can increase the revenue the government takes in, but that is not true at all marginal tax rates. The Laffer Curve shows that the rates have to be quite high for that effect to appear. The recent experience of reductions in tax rates is that they have led to reductions in revenue to the government. You may not care about that, but to say that the Laffer Curve is not a curve, but just a downward sloping line is not smart.
Also, the top marginal tax rate of 28% was only in Reagan’s last year in office, and it came thanks to Bill Bradley’s efforts in the Senate. Also should be noted that Trump screamed bloody murder in horror about that tax act.
Reagan was frustrated by having to work with Democrats in Congress, so he never got rid of the Department. That does not make it a legitimate Federal enterprise. As for Bush II, and his embrace of the idiotic "No child left behind," silliness--silliness because no two children have the same aptitudes, unless they are identical twins;--that is pure demagoguery, providing parents of slow learners with false hopes. Far better to let local schools take their own initiatives, in the local classroom, to help problems students find what they can do best, without pretending that everyone is potentially the same. And certainly not stultifying their ability to deal with problems by imposing Federal check lists of how to proceed in managing their own affairs.
The whole notion of a Federal role in local civilian education is totally antagonistic to the nature of American Federalism--and arrogant in the extreme.
“Tax cuts do NOT have a cost”
Worth repeating, again.
Gene Sperling is a POS. There are no redeeming qualities in him whatsoever.
The real question is “Will they use Static or Dynamic Scoring?”.
Kudlow is good for this and will likely push for Dynamic Scoring.
It doesn’t matter, really. If an honest review shows a plan to have too high a deficit, then I’m okay with fixing it.
It’s NOT fixing it that says something negative to me. If there’s a design flaw in a bridge, I’d hope the engineer wouldn’t let his ego get in the way of fixing it. So, this is a positive thing.
I want 2 things regarding taxes:
1. I want a tax reduction that spurs the economy and also lowers my taxes.
2. I want a tax plan that also has an excellent chance of passing Congress, even if republicans end up losing the Senate.
Besides, taxes was not the basis of the primary campaign. The major issue there was national security, immigration, jobs, and trade.
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.