New York Times Editorial: Why the Republican Tax Plans Won’t Work

New York Times ^ | 10/30/2015 | The Editorial Board

[SeekAndFind]

The Republican presidential candidates were full of tax talk at this week’s debate. But none has a tax plan coherent enough to be the basis of a substantive discussion, let alone one that could meet the nation’s challenges.

Take, for example, the issue of how much revenue any plan would raise or lose. All of the Republican plans focus on tax cuts, so losses are all but inevitable. Quick-and-dirty calculations of proposals from Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz show red ink running into the trillions of dollars.

Yet candidates assert, against historical evidence, that revenue losses from tax cuts will be offset by economic growth. Ted Cruz invoked the Reagan-era tax cuts as a model for success for his 10 percent flat-tax proposal. In fact, President Reagan raised taxes to close the budget deficit that opened up after he cut them in 1981. Ben Carson offered his muddled proposal for a tax equal to 15 percent of gross domestic product, saying it would be appealing to everyone once he “put all the facts down.”

The tax proposals from Jeb Bush, Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, while not as fantastical as those of Messrs. Cruz and Carson, all make big and broad cuts, mostly to benefit the wealthiest Americans, including an end to the estate tax, cuts in tax rates and enhanced tax breaks for investments. The only way Republican candidates could ever pay for such large tax cuts would be by slashing big spending programs, namely, Medicare and Social Security.

All of these candidates deny fiscal reality. In the next 10 years, revenues will need to increase by 40 percent simply to keep federal spending even, per capita, with inflation and population growth. Additional revenues will be needed to pay for health care for the elderly,

[Don Corleone]

These people are so rooted in the old systems that any deviation from them seems like a 7.0 earthquake. Talk about afraid of progress. Progressives are scared silly of it and only want the old tried and failed Kensian or Marxian blueprints.

[a fool in paradise]

Take all of their money and the government is still broke.

[smokingfrog]

Everyone knows that the govt. can just raise taxes or print more money if they need to spend more. Silly Republicans.

[PeterPrinciple]

All of these candidates deny fiscal reality. In the next 10 years, revenues will need to increase by 40 percent simply to keep federal spending even,

---

Any idiot can raise taxes, it takes REAL MANAGEMENT to cut spending.

I would also add that for a successful tax plan, the people have to be honest and trust the government. It takes a long time to rebuild those.

[donozark]

Anything is better than the current monstrosity, known as the tax code. I harken back to the Steve Forbes, Flat Tax Plan. Simple. Concise. Too the point. Anyone of average intelligence can comprehend it.

Former Republican Rep. Bill Archer of TX wanted to "...rip the tax code out by its roots." He tried...

[txrefugee]

We must have missed the NYT’s investigation of the Hillary/Bernie tax plans. Oh...that’s right...they are only promising Free Stuff to every Democrat voting bloc in the country, paid for by “taxing the rich” of course.

The sooner the Times goes broke and the building is sold to the highest bidder, the better it will be for the nation.

[Redleg Duke]

The problem with socialists...their economic analyses are static.

[God luvs America]

"The Democratic candidates have acknowledged this and have called for high-end tax increases, while keeping proposed tax cuts targeted on low- or middle-income Americans. They have also called for new taxes on financial transactions. Most important, their tax plans are part of broader economic proposals to raise wages, including support for a higher minimum wage, unions, expanded profit-sharing and employee ownership. "

So higher taxes will raise wages...got it

[Shark24]

The bottom line solution will be that “We the People” need to stop expecting the government to take care of all our wants and desires right down to wiping our butts. That will take more than changes to the tax code but changes to our culture and expectations. Not an easy one but then again, I work with teens at Church so I’m an optimist at heart. I have hope and have seen indications of great things from them.

[MinuteGal]

"The sooner the Times goes broke and the building is sold to the highest bidder, the better it will be for the nation."

Amen to that!

I'd love to see the Trump company purchase the Times building and turn it into an evil capitalistic luxury hotel in the heart of NYC.....producing employment and accomodations for tens of thousands of Americans who are not journalistic zombies bent on the destruction of our Republic and our freedoms.

Leni

[Da Coyote]

Like anyone believes the math of the NYT...or anything else.
Hello.....they are journalism majors......

[Political Junkie Too]

All of these candidates deny fiscal reality. In the next 10 years, revenues will need to increase by 40 percent simply to keep federal spending even...

Then let's not keep federal spending even.

-PJ

[The_Media_never_lie]

The NYT has a history of being wrong on so many things.....

[Grams A]

100 percent tax would not be enough for the present runaway government.

[John Valentine]

In the next 10 years, revenues will need to increase by 40 percent simply to keep federal spending even, per capita, with inflation and population growth.

If this is the fiscal program advocated by the New York Times (and by extension Progressives of all stripes), one can quite readily understand why the Republicans are looking for an alternative.

[Lockbox]

Does anyone want financial advise from the NY Times?

Net Income From Continuing Ops

year ending 2012 $163,940

year ending 2013 $56,907

year ending 2014 $33,391

All numbers in thousands

[Terry L Smith]

The New York Slime says the new tax plans won’t work.

Then where, dear Editor-in-Chief of the NYT, is YOUR proposed tax plan?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Then let’s not keep federal spending even.

We don’t even need to keep it even. The former Congressman Connie Mack has proposed a plan that both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity like — THE PENNY PLAN.

See here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/04/why-rep-connie-macks-penny-plan-is-worth-second-look.html

Mr. Mack’s bill, H.R. 1848, would cut one-penny-out-of-every dollar actually spent by the federal government from year-to-year for the next six years, from FY 2012-FY 2017. Beginning in FY 2018, there would be a budget cap of 18% of GDP (the average federal revenue as a percentage of GDP over the past 30 years). And by FY 2019 America would finally have a balanced budget – that is, assuming revenues naturally increase from the current 14.8% of GDP to 18% of GDP by 2019, after which the budget would be in surplus.

Unfortunately, the man got voted out in 2012 (Together with Col. Allen west). Thanks Florida.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Then where, dear Editor-in-Chief of the NYT, is YOUR proposed tax plan?

See Sanders, Bernard.

[Timber Rattler]

Flashback:

Obama open to newspaper bailout bill