Posted on 11/01/2015 5:50:18 AM PST by 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.â€
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,
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
dear seek,
I’m in favor of returning the tax levels to pre-1914 levels.
RE: dear seek,
I’m in favor of returning the tax levels to pre-1914 levels.
_________________________
What about the 16th Amendment?
When money gets tight in our house we don’t spend as much. Seems to work nicely.
Why do they always approach it from the view that spending can NEVER be cut?
You can’t print your own money and that’s the difference there.
I wouldn't take seriously New York Times editorials commenting about anything except (maybe) fashion. (Clearly they don't understand accounting or management or they wouldn't be in their constant deep fiscal poo.) I'll concede that they seem to have some gay men working for them who can identify trendy styles.
Why don't we just give them every cent we earn, and they can give us cheese, rice and federal housing apartments.
Oh wait, that's the Democratic Party's plan.
LOL! The toads down at the NYT are now tax plan experts. No wonder the country is so screwed up.
Once again the assumption is the government has first right to the earnings of the serfs...
Notice how in the past 50 years not one question was ever asked of a Democrat how they would balance the budget or lower taxes on the middle class. Any question that is asked is answered with, “I would increase taxes on the rich.”
Why would journalists know more about tax plans than the economists who developed them? This is where this country got off-track, thinking anyone with a megaphone is all-knowing.
They’re lawyers and journalists! They know squat about running a country except how to find ‘expert witnesses’ to put on the stand for their viewpoint.
dear seek,
re:
“What about the 16th Amendment?
I was referring to the pre-1914 level, previous to Feb. 02, 1913 (Groundhog Day).
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.