Republican Tax Plan (a nothingburger with cheese)

[Teddy KGB]

 

 

Rip Dems 

 

 

[B-Man]

First, they claimed that people's taxes would go up, not down.

 

Then, they claimed that the tax cuts were too small to matter to the middle class.

 

NOW, the tax cuts that we weren't supposed to be getting are significant enough to sway our votes.

 

The stupid never seems to end.

 

 

Quote

 

All about midterms -- How Trump Administration Could Game Paychecks to Win Support for the Tax Bill

 

via @thenationhttps://www.thenation.com/article/how-the-trump-administration-could-game-paychecks-to-win-support-for-the-tax-bill/ …

11:03 AM - Dec 27, 2017

 

 

 

Tax cuts are considered “gaming paychecks” now?

 

"Game Paychecks".....Also known as a reduction of withholdings due to a reduction in taxes

 

has the Left’s narrative really gone from “people will die” to “sure they’ll pay less in taxes but it could be a trick to buy votes” in just a few days?...

 

 

.

Edited December 28, 2017 by B-Man

[Nanker]

The Left is more obtuse and self-unaware than the poster I have on ignore. 

[keepthefaith]

On 12/24/2017 at 10:46 AM, TPS said:

1. Regardless of the method, increasing the deficit provides a short-term boost to demand and GDP, which is why I said Trump's plan could push growth to 3-4%, but it will be very short-lived since we are near the end of the business cycle. For example, Reagan's initial cuts went into effect when unemployment was 10%, and Bush2 began his term and cuts in the midst of a brief downturn. In both cases, there was a lot of room for growth post cuts/deficits.

2. I agree somewhat on the difference;  tax cuts in theory are supposed to affect behavior, but in practice they have had a very, very small impact over time. For example, growth during Bush2's terms was nearly 1% below historical average.

I'm not schooled in economics as you are and enjoy reading many of your posts.  I'm very concerned about our mounting national debt and as a business owner the high costs of doing business especially in more recent years.  Businesses especially during the Obama years had a lot of cost increases in all kinds of insurance, taxes (many of them local) and also service and material cost increases.  Our business has become increasingly difficult to manage cost-wise.  The corporate tax rate change for large corporations provides a significant incentive for them to invest more in people and business development.  A good thing IMO and a hedge against other rising costs. 

 

I've looked at tax revenue history during since Reagan and I'll wager that we won't see a $1T annual deficit at any time during Trump's Presidency as I believe the recent cuts will grow the economy and grow revenue to the government.  I'll be really disappointed if the spending side isn't also addressed so that we can close the gap and Republicans are at least talking about that.  All spending needs to be examined and re-prioritized IMO and Medicare/Medicaid/SS have to be addressed. We've got to find a lot of savings in those entitlements or be honest with the public and raise tax rates for those programs or a little of both.  If we can do this (probably a pipe dream) we can put to bed for a while the runaway debt we're seeing over the past 20 years or so. 

 

As for the Fed Reserve, it certainly seems as though there is a big incentive to keep rates relatively low as the cost to fund our debt will be ridiculous at some point otherwise.  I don't fully understand all of their priorities in making rate decisions but it would seem to me that the debt service cost should be a factor.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by keepthefaith

[B-Man]

 

[row_33]

It passed? I only heard 800 times by a panel of experts that there was no way this was possible.

 

 

[Koko78]

5 hours ago, row_33 said:

It passed? I only heard 800 times by a panel of experts that there was no way this was possible.

 

 

 

It did pass! Between Trump being president, net neutrality being overturned, cow farts, and this evil tax plan, civilization is scheduled to end January 5, 2018 at 2:34 pm.

[TPS]

On 12/28/2017 at 2:09 PM, keepthefaith said:

I'm not schooled in economics as you are and enjoy reading many of your posts.  I'm very concerned about our mounting national debt and as a business owner the high costs of doing business especially in more recent years.  Businesses especially during the Obama years had a lot of cost increases in all kinds of insurance, taxes (many of them local) and also service and material cost increases.  Our business has become increasingly difficult to manage cost-wise.  The corporate tax rate change for large corporations provides a significant incentive for them to invest more in people and business development.  A good thing IMO and a hedge against other rising costs. 

 

I've looked at tax revenue history during since Reagan and I'll wager that we won't see a $1T annual deficit at any time during Trump's Presidency as I believe the recent cuts will grow the economy and grow revenue to the government.  I'll be really disappointed if the spending side isn't also addressed so that we can close the gap and Republicans are at least talking about that.  All spending needs to be examined and re-prioritized IMO and Medicare/Medicaid/SS have to be addressed. We've got to find a lot of savings in those entitlements or be honest with the public and raise tax rates for those programs or a little of both.  If we can do this (probably a pipe dream) we can put to bed for a while the runaway debt we're seeing over the past 20 years or so. 

 

As for the Fed Reserve, it certainly seems as though there is a big incentive to keep rates relatively low as the cost to fund our debt will be ridiculous at some point otherwise.  I don't fully understand all of their priorities in making rate decisions but it would seem to me that the debt service cost should be a factor.

 

 

 

 

Thanks faith, it's always a breath of fresh air here when someone wants to discuss rather than attack. 

As I've said, anything that increases the deficit provides a stimulus to economic growth. Spending programs like the Obama stimulus are temporary and designed to provide a short-term kick-start to the economy. Permanent tax cuts reduces the share of revenues (relative to GDP) taken in for a given "state of the economy." That is, the only way to seriously compare the impact tax changes have on the personal revenue-to-GDP ratio is to compare the different tax regimes at similar levels of unemployment.*

 

My argument is the tax cuts will stimulate an already buoyant economy next year and we'll probably see growth between 3.5-4%, but with an economy at 4.1% unemployment already, we'll see the rate fall below 4% which will trigger faster wage gains and inflationary pressures. The Fed's priority is maintaining inflation around its 2% target, and it is expected to raise rates (I believe) 4 more times next year, but faster growth will push them to raise rates faster and higher, triggering the next slowdown, most likely in 2019, if not earlier. That's when the deficit **** will hit the fan again. Next year will be affected by one-time impacts of repatriating profits, so the 2018 deficit will probably be slightly higher than 2017, which should be around $700 billion.  I don't expect the Reps to make cuts in 2018, because it's an election year.  If my scenario plays out, and deficits approach $1 trillion in 2019, then they could use that to support their desire for cuts at that time. We'll see...

 

I'll try to address the debt and interest rate burden with another post.

 

* Wanted to be clear here. When you change tax rates, the revenues taken in over the course of a business cycle are lower for the regime with lower tax rates. This is why the CBO projects an increase in the deficit of $1-1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. This also means it creates a greater stimulus effect over the cycle as well because of the bigger deficits.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by TPS

[Nanker]

The last person to tackle the great entitlement of FDR - Social Security was Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We need someone like that to step up now because it's entitlements like this that are what is driving our deficits. He pushed back the full retirement age in stages and adjusted the rates. That worked for a time, but further increases in claims that were never a part of the original law have further burdened the system so that it is unsustainable as currently structured.

 

Dems will whine and shout about killing grandma and grandpa, but they're living twenty to thirty years longer on average (shooting from the hip here) than they did back in the 40s and 50s. SS was never meant to be the sole retirement plan for all Americans. It was a hedge against becoming destitute in one's old age. It was built for a different time than what we live in. 

 

My mother-in-law was in the WAVES for about 18 months in WWII. Then she worked for about 2 1/2 years as a secretary in a brokerage office. Then she quit, got married, had kids, and never worked at a job (other than mother and housewife) for the rest of her life. She started collecting SS payments when she was 65 up to and until she died at age 84. She probably paid a few hundred dollars at most into the system, and yet got back tens of thousands in return. 

[TPS]

18 hours ago, Nanker said:

The last person to tackle the great entitlement of FDR - Social Security was Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We need someone like that to step up now because it's entitlements like this that are what is driving our deficits. He pushed back the full retirement age in stages and adjusted the rates. That worked for a time, but further increases in claims that were never a part of the original law have further burdened the system so that it is unsustainable as currently structured.

 

Dems will whine and shout about killing grandma and grandpa, but they're living twenty to thirty years longer on average (shooting from the hip here) than they did back in the 40s and 50s. SS was never meant to be the sole retirement plan for all Americans. It was a hedge against becoming destitute in one's old age. It was built for a different time than what we live in. 

 

My mother-in-law was in the WAVES for about 18 months in WWII. Then she worked for about 2 1/2 years as a secretary in a brokerage office. Then she quit, got married, had kids, and never worked at a job (other than mother and housewife) for the rest of her life. She started collecting SS payments when she was 65 up to and until she died at age 84. She probably paid a few hundred dollars at most into the system, and yet got back tens of thousands in return. 

regarding your example, did her husband collect? 

 

[mead107]

Looks better than the plan the Democrats offered up.  

[Nanker]

8 hours ago, TPS said:

regarding your example, did her husband collect? 

 

Yes. 

[Cinga]

On 12/29/2017 at 3:56 PM, TPS said:

As I've said, anything that increases the deficit provides a stimulus to economic growth. Spending programs like the Obama stimulus are temporary and designed to provide a short-term kick-start to the economy.

This is a Keynsian policy that has never ever proven true but also has never been implemented correctly.

 

Your right, Keynes talks of deficit spending to help stimulate the economy during a recession. However he adds that once the economy boosts, the government must then cut spending to pay back the debt. What Keynes failed to see though was that once you give people free ****, it is then politically impossible to take away that free **** which makes the next "stimulus" deficit spending even harder to do since you still have outstanding debt from the last "stimulus" and the one before that, and the one before that..... 

 

The 2% growth and federal reserve is also a problem, but don't have time to address it now

Edited December 31, 2017 by Cinga

[/dev/null]

8 minutes ago, Cinga said:

This is a Keynsian policy that has never ever proven true but also has never been implemented correctly.

 

Your right, Keynes talks of deficit spending to help stimulate the economy during a recession. However he adds that once the economy boosts, the government must then cut spending to pay back the debt. What Keynes failed to see though was that once you give people free ****, it is then politically impossible to take away that free **** which makes the next "stimulus" deficit spending even harder to do since you still have outstanding debt from the last "stimulus" and the one before that, and the one before that..... 

 

The 2% growth and federal reserve is also a problem, but don't have time to address it now

 

While I find no fault in your argument I must point out one minor TSW/PPP specific flaw in your post

Round these parts we call it Stimulous  

 

 

One of the most ardent defenders of that particular piece of legislation, as well as one of the most comically reliable Leftist shills, had abit of a spelling problem in his copy/paste routine

[Azalin]

15 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

One of the most ardent defenders of that particular piece of legislation, as well as one of the most comically reliable Leftist shills, had abit of a spelling problem in his copy/paste routine

 

 

I was wondering about that. So many people were spelling it that way that I actually looked it up to be sure I wasn't going crazy.

 

Well, don't I feel foolish.

 

[/dev/null]

30 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I was wondering about that. So many people were spelling it that way that I actually looked it up to be sure I wasn't going crazy.

 

Well, don't I feel foolish.

 

 

[Azalin]

3 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

 

[row_33]

Quite the passed tax bill for what our resident genius Tiberius labelled a nothingburger.

 

[Nanker]

9 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

I was wondering about that. So many people were spelling it that way that I actually looked it up to be sure I wasn't going crazy.

 

Well, don't I feel foolish.

 

There are a few of those TBDisms you might encounter once in awhile. Maroon - as in, You’re such a maroon - was very popular for some time. Though it took Aussiew and CGF a bit to catch on. It drove ‘em nuts at first.  

 

[keepthefaith]

7 hours ago, row_33 said:

Quite the passed tax bill for what our resident genius Tiberius labelled a nothingburger.

 

 

But he did add cheese so even he felt it had some substance.