The author’s subtle resistance to the tax bill is visible in the opening paragraph which uses words that point to a more difficult task for Congressional Republicans than is the case, such as ‘expiring’. ‘perks’, ‘daunting’, and ‘competing’. Then, the list of resolutions is more of the same pessimism and opposition, rather than optimism and realistic solutions.
A paragraph by paragraph list of the authors flaws and comments follows.
Temporary tax cuts are a needed provision to gain support of the remaining RINOs. If the Senate shifts to greater numbers of Republicans, and the loss of RINOs currently seated, the revised tax law bill of 2018 can be amended in 2019 to make most of the changes permanent.
The Byrd Rule isn’t a long-term obstacle if the Republicans increase their Senate seats without (m)any RINOs remaining. The term ‘monkey around’ is biased. A proper, neutral term would be ‘reconcile’. The term ‘taken to arguing’ would indicate resistance to the short-term solution, whereas this isn’t a significant problem.
Pass-through tax break provision differences are easily reconcilable due to similarity, and the relative ease of finding revenues to offset a short-term increase in debt expected before GDP rises more than offset the increased debt. Debt after ten years is raised by the author as if the US economy will be static after massive tax cuts, especially for businesses and the middle class. One point five trillion divided by 10 equals $150 Billion per year… not very significant relative to GDP gains and totals, especially after 3 – 5 years of inflationary effects.
AMT is a challenge because the Senate bill retains it. It has grown to a point that it affects many more people than it was expected to affect when it came into being in ‘86. The solution is in the Senate’s approach. i.e. raise the individual exemptions. The “bearish”, temporary solution is to retain this provision, but compromise with the House by raising the exemptions approved in the Senate bill to higher levels, but less than infinity (House version).
ACA Mandate tax penalty repeal is fairly easy to reconcile, by taking out the mandate as a starting point for the beginning of reconciliation. If House Republicans object, the compromise is to lower the mandated tax penalties to levels far below the current level, to amounts that are insignificant to most citizens, with penalties graduated so as to not be a regressive tax that adversely affects the poor more than the middle class. Eventually, the penalty would become zero; i.e. eliminated after mid-term elections. This approach requires clear explanations from Republicans as to what I just outlined, and the eventual repeal of ACA through a bill to be passed in the near future, if not after mid-term elections.
Business expenses deduction processes can be reconciled if sensible House members agree to the less severe change in the Senate version; i.e. a slowly winding trail down the mountain rather than a steep, ‘hard cliff’ (Flakes’ words) change. Businesses would be grateful for the tax relief, albeit via a slow phase-in.
Mortgage Interest Deduction is easy to reconcile by starting with the midpoint of $750,000 as the reconciliation initiator. Movement towards the $500,000 or $1M cap would be done by testing support in both chambers for proposed changes. A phase-in of the deduction drop would be easier if time shows significant GDP growth over the next two years.
SALT deduction; this will likely remain as is, for now. As deep blue, highly taxed states see greater exodus of businesses and wealthier individual from those states to lower taxed states, they will be forced to lower taxes to compete with lower taxed states, and cut spending and waste. This is a long-term problem requiring a gradual correction in deep blue states over a decade or more.
Estate Taxes differences won’t be difficult to reconcile. The House bill buys time to see if revenue lost can be recouped through GDP growth in the next 2 – 4 years. But this might be dropped now, to be revisited later in an amendment, with hindsight of data on GDP growth.
Summary: the reconciliation isn’t going to be easy or smooth, but there are obvious pathways that require coddling certain ‘problematic RINO Congressmen’. The key is to make harsh changes more palatable by phasing them in over 2 – 10 years, depending on their nature and size of their impacts.
The SALT deduction issue is a critical issue to face due to the long-term implications of high tax states solvency issues, now and in the near term. It is far too complex to discuss here, but the elimination of the SALT deduction would FORCE red / high tax states to confront their solvency problems almost immediately. I’m hesitant for the Fed to impose their will on states, but also realize the US Congress represents state’s interests on an aggregated basis. What a dilemma!
Wait until small business owners of pass through entities realize the reinstalled AMT in the Senate bill wipes out any advantage of the lowering of their taxes (25% in House bill and 23% deduction in Senate bill).
As the senate bill is currently constructed there will be a flood of pass through entities converting to C Corps.
Truly clueless. LLC’s, Partnerships, S-Corps. If you worked in insurance you would know it’s a lot. If you were able to think independently, or read anything but hack far right-wing sources you would know this will result in a lot of companies changing their business types. Stop pretending you know or care about this, just be honest and say you don’t believe in nor want to pay taxes.
UW, totally clueless left wing rant. If you were able to use rational thought, you would be happy that Tax relief will be great for the country. It is exactly what the country needs, not the Progressive Tax Code the country has lived with for decades and held the country back so long.
1. I’m confident you couldn’t coherently describe progressive taxation without looking it up. 2. There is overwhelming evidence progressive taxation is good for an economy. 3. Almost this exact plan was just tried in Republican Kansas and destroyed their economy.
December 6, 2017 at 11:30 am
GroPoLaeur Bear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
correction: “only $15B more than the cost of Illegal Immigration.” bear culpa. bear distracted by environmental factors, and also needs more coffee.
December 6, 2017 at 11:30 am
GroPoLaeur Bear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@UW: we’re not in a Kansas economy, anymore.
December 4, 2017 at 7:58 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Nobody needs anyone to point it out, Yogi. Your ignorance is on full display. You don’t know about the topic you are commenting on.
Republicans slashed taxes under Reagan and the growth of the economy slowed incredibly. They came to their senses and began raising taxes again, little by little 13 times and, weirdly enough, the economy started improving.
Slashing taxes in a healthy economy is the worst idea ever. Slashing them in a poor economy doesn’t work either, but at least it sounds right in that instance.
Wealth inequality will continue to skyrocket. The Republican yqx plan will only exacerbate that fact.
Giving somebody a $500 tax benefit while slashing social services they rely on is NOT a net gain. Giving them a few hundred dollars a year will do nothing to pull them out of debt, and raise their social strata. With stupid ideas and policies like this, it’s no wonder America’s upward mobility is far worse than many other developed nations.
I am confident that you are a Progressive troll from the Soros camp trying to disrupt and spread disinformation. There is overwhelming evidence that Progressive taxation does not help, but rather deters economic growth in the country. I am sure you must have loved all those 1.5%-2% GDP’s of the last 8 years, record Food Stamp growth, 95 million on the sidelines not working, doubling the National Debt without creating meaningful job growth. Time to go in a different direction, Progressivism had its chance and failed miserably. Get behind the President and let’s get moving again.
Do tell, Agent. How will this tax plan fix anything you mentioned in your last post?
The JFC report about this adding hundreds of billions to the debt (trillions?) said that it wasn’t going to add so much to the debt even factoring in all the projected growth, but instead that there will be no growth.
Giving more money to the people who choose to offshore it and hoard it won’t magically flip a switch and cause some hiring spree, increased wages, and so on. It won’t happen. Especially when robotics and artificial intelligence is going to replace many more jobs than could ever hope to be created under voodoo economics most rosy projections.
Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy’s goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]
The stated goals of the tax cuts were to raise personal incomes, increase consumption, and increase capital investments. Evidence shows that these goals were exceeded by large degree with the combination of tax cuts and domestic spending programs President Johnson advocated, such as Medicare.[4] Unemployment fell from 5.2% in 1964 to 4.5% in 1965, and fell to 3.8% in 1966.[4][5]
***************************************************************
Initial estimates predicted a loss of revenue as a result of the tax cuts, however, tax revenue increased in 1964 and 1965.[4][6]
***************************************************************
Did you find any negative impacts, like a ‘nearly destroyed economy like in Kansas’? I thought not. Toto; we’re not in Kansas (economic conditions) anymore!
If you’re a Socialist and don’t like bad news, skip the ‘Results’ section of the Reaganomics Wiki page linked above.
excerpt:
The stated goals of the tax cuts were to raise personal incomes, increase consumption, and increase capital investments. Evidence shows that these goals were exceeded by large degree with the combination of tax cuts and domestic spending programs President Johnson advocated, such as Medicare.[4] Unemployment fell from 5.2% in 1964 to 4.5% in 1965, and fell to 3.8% in 1966.[4][5]
****************************************************************
Initial estimates predicted a loss of revenue as a result of the tax cuts, however, tax revenue increased in 1964 and 1965.[4][6]
****************************************************************
Oddly, no summary judgement is given by Wiki authors on Reagan’s tax cut plan, as compared to the great results reported for Kennedy’s tax cuts. Could that be because they are from different political parties, one of which Wiki authors suport and the other which Wiki authors do not like?
Here’s more to consider:
ht tp s:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
This page, too, has little commentary on the effectiveness of Reaganomics, despite the government stats readily available to show the impacts. The majority of stats and judgements are impartial when positive results occurred, and mostly negative when negative results occurred. So, for an unbiased report on the TRA-86, look to places other than Wiki.
Polar, all we need to know for sure is that if Nancy Pelosi-Galore thinks the tax bill is “Armageddon”, it must be actually great and will restore the country to fiscal health.
How can any entity restore their fiscal health by increasing their spending while decreasing their revenue?
I am old enough to recall Republicans being against increasing the debt…last year.
December 5, 2017 at 3:17 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
Republicans WON’T increase the debt. That’s ANOTHER false claim by LIBITTERALS that ignores GDP growth that will be spurred on by the tax cuts …and repatriation of corporate capital from foreign lands – for MORE GDP growth.
December 5, 2017 at 3:39 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Polar – let’s say the growth in GDP does not happen to the levels the Republican’s expect …
there’s no amendment stating something like “if this tax plan actually increases the debt due to slower than expected GDP growth, we will increase the taxation level to make sure it doesn’t add to the defect” …
how exactly could the budget NOT cause an increase in debt?
Isn’t the plan basically saying ‘we’re crossing our fingers for a ___% increase in GDP to make sure we don’t increase the debt’ without having any solidified plan in place to off-set the potential lower-than-anticipated GDP growth?
December 5, 2017 at 3:40 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
And yes, I saw you wrote “repatriation of corporate capital from foreign lands” but that’s at best a one-year stop gap solution. I’m thinking long term here
December 5, 2017 at 4:20 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
“Republicans WON’T increase the debt.” The FACT that the debt continues to increase is proof that you are wrong.
“That’s ANOTHER false claim by LIBITTERALS that ignores GDP growth that will be spurred on by the tax cuts …and repatriation of corporate capital from foreign lands – for MORE GDP growth.” Let’s say for the sake of argument that you and your Republican friends are wrong about your GDP predictions. What is the back-up plan?
December 6, 2017 at 10:10 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
@Ronnie & Rosie: We’ll assume the GDP does grow as planned, and will address any shortfalls that my occur if and when they occur. You two would have kept Christopher Columbus at the dock. As for me; I’m boarding the Tax Cuts Train, which will be rolling along on a course toward US prosperity.
Review economics of fiscal and monetary policy to understand how to jump-start a stagnant economy.
December 6, 2017 at 10:12 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@Ron; capital repatriated from foreign lands can be used, over and over, year after year. Thus, you’re incorrect in categorizing it as a ‘1 year’ change. It remains in the hands of capitalists in much the same way a (new) hammer remains in the hands of a carpenter, year after year.
December 6, 2017 at 11:12 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@Ron; re: your first Q: thru INCREASED VOLUME of business activity.
December 8, 2017 at 9:51 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
@Ron; how can the Republicans restore fiscal health by …
This is an example of the positive effect of regulatory roll-backs and the POTENTIAL for regressive taxes being rolled back….
In a recent poll of major economists every respondent but 1 said it would not work as they claim. The one said later they misread the question.
Now I’m sure you will start to provide sources for your stuff when asked instead of just disappearing like you usually do, right?
Now freak out and lie or change the topic based on your poor reading skills and education. Ready, set, durrrrr!
December 7, 2017 at 7:33 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Proof is a CBO report? LMAO!
December 7, 2017 at 7:36 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Berkley.edu? LMAO!
“Every major economist but one….” LMAO at the categorization of “major”.
December 7, 2017 at 7:38 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Psst: you’ve discredited Faux News, without justification other than implied conservative, “right wing conspiracy against me and my husband” bias. Thus, others can automatically discredit CBO, Berkeley, … You haven’t proven anything with BIASED Left wing reports and opinion.
December 7, 2017 at 7:43 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
… meanwhile, I posted TWO POTUSES’ Tax cuts that led to prosperity.
I already know the response you’ll make about different economic conditions. There are economic policies to apply for those circumstances.
Libitterals fear the beneficial impacts of tax cuts for US citizens who pay income taxes, as well as others who do not. Further, if the SALT deduction is eliminated, US citizen taxpayers in blue states with highest tax rates will feel the pinch and vote to turn away from Democrat Socialist policies and politicians in subsequent elections. It’s the Democrat Socialists / Communists greatest fear, and they’re grasping at straws to come up with fake ‘reasons’ for RINO Congressmen to vote against it.
December 7, 2017 at 8:38 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Nobody is arguing the tax cuts do not help the economy. The point is the impact on the debt and deficits. Historically (see tax cuts signed by Presidents Reagan and GW Bush and the ensuing increases in the national debt), tax cuts have not lead to enough economic growth to generate sufficient increased tax revenue to pay for themselves. Those are indisputable facts. If you want to argue that there were other factors that caused growth projections to not be met, fine.
Also, who gets the cuts matters. If you hand money to a profitable company or person who has so much money that they will only save more, cutting their taxes would not help. They will, and should, just pocket the extra money.
December 7, 2017 at 5:50 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Polar, one of the worst things LBJ did while in office was to rob the Social Security Trust Fund and put it in the General Fund to pay for his “War on Poverty”. What a wonderful Progressive program that turned out to be. NOT!
December 7, 2017 at 6:17 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Polar. Immediately discredit anything that you don’t agree with before looking at it.
Berkley is ranked in the top 5 in economics programs in the world.
Berkeley is ranked in the top 5 Socialist colleges by Socialists. Nothing else need be said about it.
December 8, 2017 at 8:25 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Further, the US is ranked #1 in World economy, and the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts are REAL WORLD, not theoretical, PROOF of tax cuts spurring economic growth. In this case, it will create the greatest flow of capital back to the US ever.
No one ‘lives their entire (economic) life’ at Berkeley…. they live in the real world. But, you and other Socialists may choose to hold onto your Socialist beliefs for as long as you like.
December 8, 2017 at 10:51 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Like Kennedy, I’d support a corporate tax rate of 47%, a top marginal tax rate of 75%, and bottom rate of 14%. Those numbers worked well for us here in The Uniduh Schtathshs. Employment fell to 3.8% and revenue increased.
December 6, 2017 at 9:50 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
Polar, don’t you think it is ironic that Progressive Democrats are so concerned with deficits under this tax plan yet to be implemented when they had the biggest spender, taxer and deficit creator in office for 8 years and doubled the national debt?
Also, the economic conditions matter. When there is a giant economic crash, like the one created by Republicans and conservatives in 2008, deficit spending is a solution. I wanted more deficits and more debt under Obama. When the economy is recovered deficits aren’t always a good idea. I would be fine with more deficits if it was to actual programs that would help the economy instead of to cut programs that help the most vulnerable in order to help the richest few percent.
This tax plan will lead to more speculation in the financial markets, and another giant crash in a few years. The last one happened largely because the rich and Wall Street had so much they were engineering new things to bet on, eg derivatives, which created a crash. It will happen again, and the dumbest of the dumb here will blame Democrats, no matter what. Most of them are so brainwashed they will still probably blame Obama.
December 5, 2017 at 3:20 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
I am old enough to remember you voting for the Taxer in Chief twice and the country languishing for 8 very long years under that burden. We can tell you about the economics of tax cuts to spur the economy, create more jobs and therefore more tax revenue to the government, but we can’t force you to understand it. Once a Progressive, always one, right Ron?
Last I checked, per the Constitution, Congress is in charge of taxation. Have they changed the Constitution without telling anybody or are you just ignorant. I will let you decide.
With that in mind, which party has held the majority in Congress for the past 6 years? Hint: it was not the Democrats.
Question: How come the only administrations during which the debt more than doubled, also saw 2 of the largest tax cuts in history? Coincidence? I think not.
If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.
But if the President vetos a bill, it can still become law if 2/3rds of the House & Senate approve it. In that case (even with a veto) the President isn’t actually in charge of taxation, just like Ron said the first time.
LOL @ grasping at infinitesimally small probability scenarios for a means to try to discredit my point.
FYI: ‘in charge of’ doesn’t exclude ‘control the end result’.
December 6, 2017 at 12:02 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
To recap:
Ron said “Congress is in charge of taxation”
PBR said “The Presidential veto is a sign of Congressional limitations [with regards to taxation]”
I said “Congress can veto the Presidential veto, thereby proving Congress is actually in charge of taxation, not the President”
PBR said “You’re grasping at straws”
I now say “I’m just telling you how the law works. The President clearly IS NOT in charge of taxes if the Presidential Veto can be overridden.
Congress can pass whatever tax law it wants without the President’s approval.
The President cannot pass whatever tax law he wants without Congress’s approval.
Clearly, Congress is in charge of taxes.
December 8, 2017 at 8:31 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Which R or D party members will flip to overturn a POTUS veto?
December 6, 2017 at 2:31 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Please list all of the tax cut bills that President Obama vetoed.
Ron, how stupid is your statement? Obama was protected by the now infamous Harry Reid from ever seeing the numerous bills the House sent over. They went in the trash never to be debated or voted on.
December 7, 2017 at 8:30 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Agent,
Then blame Harry Reid for the tax laws during that time, not President Obama.
“They went in the trash never to be debated or voted on.” This just proves my point.
December 7, 2017 at 6:24 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
This is all you need to know Ron. The hardcore tea party types like Agent are chronically uninformed. They are a total waste unless you are mocking them.
@Ron: re: Dingy Harry Reid’s control of The US Senate’s agenda is an extension of Obama’s will via the respondeat superior principle.
December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
“Dingy Harry Reid’s control of The US Senate’s agenda is an extension of Obama’s will via the respondent superior principle.” And you accuse others of grasping at straws and going down rabbit holes.
Tell the Mad Hatter that I said, “Hi”.
December 8, 2017 at 11:43 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Yeah, and tell that caterpillar he still owes Agent $50. He’s not running a dang charity around here!
December 12, 2017 at 11:53 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Please tell us all the tax cut bills President Obama proposed during his tenure to help recover the economy from mediocrity.
Mr. Confused, you may want to check out that Congress is in the process of revising the Progressive Tax Code as we speak. Trump go the ball rolling and has put pressure on to change it, but Congress has to do it and put it on his desk for signature. Unlike Obama who promised to veto anything sent to him on the Healthcare law, Trump says send it to me and if acceptable, I will sign it.
Sure Confused, I never said our great President was writing the new Tax Law. All he did was set the parameters of what he would like to see for the American people to help out the middle class and business. Quit trying to argue the point.
I was simply responding to the point I made that you replied to regarding who actually makes the tax laws. But hey. We agree. So let’s just stifle the attitude, STFU, and move on, ya?
Simplified Republican Code with tax cuts for Middle Class and business – Good
Got it yet or do you want to argue some more?
December 7, 2017 at 12:24 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Agent,
You do realize that both of the current tax laws are still progressive, right?
Honest question: If the debt is higher on 11/3/2020 than it is now, will you still be blaming President Obama or does that fall on our current president?
December 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
come on ron, you already know the answer. it will be the democrats fault for not working with the republican majority in both the house and senate
December 8, 2017 at 8:35 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@Ron; you’re parsing words again. Rabbit hole time for you.
December 8, 2017 at 8:36 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Confused said: “So let’s just stifle the attitude, STFU, and move on, ya?”
Frustrated by the inability to BOT-censor conservatives.
December 8, 2017 at 9:07 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
I said that because Agent and I agreed but he was still butting heads with me – he should not continue to argue once it is determined there is an agreement on the point being argued
December 8, 2017 at 9:23 am
alexjonesisakook says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Yogi–we’ve been over this before–THERE ARE NO BOTS. Nobody on here who downvotes you has anything to do with George Soros, nobody asks their old high-school or college friends to come on here and downvote you, and there’s not conspiracy to silence conservative voices on the Insurance Journal. I personally downvote you and anyone else whenever they go off topic or insult others. I also upvote posts (including yours and even Agent’s) when they’re funny, witty, or make a good point. Play nice or don’t play.
December 8, 2017 at 9:58 am
alexjonesisakook says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Yogi–you post under at least 5 different names. Does that mean you’re switching names and addy’s to downvote multiple times?
I upvoted your last post.
December 11, 2017 at 10:30 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Confused, you didn’t even realize you insulted me, right? By the way, what does move on ya even mean? Go back and learn proper English if you want to argue.
December 8, 2017 at 8:34 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
No, we don’t agree with any rabbit hole arguments you make…. it is clear Congress must actually write the bills, but POTUS signs them into law AT HIS WILL.
Please post the date of the last veto override. I believe it was a veto by BO that was almost unanimously overridden.
December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
/THAT was my intent regarding the 2/3 threshold being nearly impossible to breach.
December 8, 2017 at 10:07 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
I agree the threshold is nearly impossible to reach, but that’s besides the point – nobody is arguing it WILL happen or that it HAS happened before.
The simple fact is that Congress CAN veto a President’s veto on a tax bill and implement their bill in spite of the President’s veto. That’s all that matters when trying to figure out who actually holds the final say for making the tax laws in our country.
December 8, 2017 at 10:14 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
9/28/2016. The one and only time one of the 12 vetoes by President Obama was overridden. President GW Bush had 4 of his vetoes overridden and Reagan had 9.
The author’s subtle resistance to the tax bill is visible in the opening paragraph which uses words that point to a more difficult task for Congressional Republicans than is the case, such as ‘expiring’. ‘perks’, ‘daunting’, and ‘competing’. Then, the list of resolutions is more of the same pessimism and opposition, rather than optimism and realistic solutions.
A paragraph by paragraph list of the authors flaws and comments follows.
Temporary tax cuts are a needed provision to gain support of the remaining RINOs. If the Senate shifts to greater numbers of Republicans, and the loss of RINOs currently seated, the revised tax law bill of 2018 can be amended in 2019 to make most of the changes permanent.
The Byrd Rule isn’t a long-term obstacle if the Republicans increase their Senate seats without (m)any RINOs remaining. The term ‘monkey around’ is biased. A proper, neutral term would be ‘reconcile’. The term ‘taken to arguing’ would indicate resistance to the short-term solution, whereas this isn’t a significant problem.
Pass-through tax break provision differences are easily reconcilable due to similarity, and the relative ease of finding revenues to offset a short-term increase in debt expected before GDP rises more than offset the increased debt. Debt after ten years is raised by the author as if the US economy will be static after massive tax cuts, especially for businesses and the middle class. One point five trillion divided by 10 equals $150 Billion per year… not very significant relative to GDP gains and totals, especially after 3 – 5 years of inflationary effects.
AMT is a challenge because the Senate bill retains it. It has grown to a point that it affects many more people than it was expected to affect when it came into being in ‘86. The solution is in the Senate’s approach. i.e. raise the individual exemptions. The “bearish”, temporary solution is to retain this provision, but compromise with the House by raising the exemptions approved in the Senate bill to higher levels, but less than infinity (House version).
ACA Mandate tax penalty repeal is fairly easy to reconcile, by taking out the mandate as a starting point for the beginning of reconciliation. If House Republicans object, the compromise is to lower the mandated tax penalties to levels far below the current level, to amounts that are insignificant to most citizens, with penalties graduated so as to not be a regressive tax that adversely affects the poor more than the middle class. Eventually, the penalty would become zero; i.e. eliminated after mid-term elections. This approach requires clear explanations from Republicans as to what I just outlined, and the eventual repeal of ACA through a bill to be passed in the near future, if not after mid-term elections.
Business expenses deduction processes can be reconciled if sensible House members agree to the less severe change in the Senate version; i.e. a slowly winding trail down the mountain rather than a steep, ‘hard cliff’ (Flakes’ words) change. Businesses would be grateful for the tax relief, albeit via a slow phase-in.
Mortgage Interest Deduction is easy to reconcile by starting with the midpoint of $750,000 as the reconciliation initiator. Movement towards the $500,000 or $1M cap would be done by testing support in both chambers for proposed changes. A phase-in of the deduction drop would be easier if time shows significant GDP growth over the next two years.
SALT deduction; this will likely remain as is, for now. As deep blue, highly taxed states see greater exodus of businesses and wealthier individual from those states to lower taxed states, they will be forced to lower taxes to compete with lower taxed states, and cut spending and waste. This is a long-term problem requiring a gradual correction in deep blue states over a decade or more.
Estate Taxes differences won’t be difficult to reconcile. The House bill buys time to see if revenue lost can be recouped through GDP growth in the next 2 – 4 years. But this might be dropped now, to be revisited later in an amendment, with hindsight of data on GDP growth.
Summary: the reconciliation isn’t going to be easy or smooth, but there are obvious pathways that require coddling certain ‘problematic RINO Congressmen’. The key is to make harsh changes more palatable by phasing them in over 2 – 10 years, depending on their nature and size of their impacts.
clarification; 2nd paragraph should read “and my comments”. bear culpa.
The SALT deduction issue is a critical issue to face due to the long-term implications of high tax states solvency issues, now and in the near term. It is far too complex to discuss here, but the elimination of the SALT deduction would FORCE red / high tax states to confront their solvency problems almost immediately. I’m hesitant for the Fed to impose their will on states, but also realize the US Congress represents state’s interests on an aggregated basis. What a dilemma!
Don’t you mean “blue / high tax states”?
Yeah! Oooops! bear culpa.
Wait until small business owners of pass through entities realize the reinstalled AMT in the Senate bill wipes out any advantage of the lowering of their taxes (25% in House bill and 23% deduction in Senate bill).
As the senate bill is currently constructed there will be a flood of pass through entities converting to C Corps.
How many small businesses are involved in pass-throughs? Not many, if I interpret your term small business correctly.
Regardless, what previously prevented them from the conversion you suggest now?
Truly clueless. LLC’s, Partnerships, S-Corps. If you worked in insurance you would know it’s a lot. If you were able to think independently, or read anything but hack far right-wing sources you would know this will result in a lot of companies changing their business types. Stop pretending you know or care about this, just be honest and say you don’t believe in nor want to pay taxes.
UW, totally clueless left wing rant. If you were able to use rational thought, you would be happy that Tax relief will be great for the country. It is exactly what the country needs, not the Progressive Tax Code the country has lived with for decades and held the country back so long.
1. I’m confident you couldn’t coherently describe progressive taxation without looking it up. 2. There is overwhelming evidence progressive taxation is good for an economy. 3. Almost this exact plan was just tried in Republican Kansas and destroyed their economy.
correction: “only $15B more than the cost of Illegal Immigration.” bear culpa. bear distracted by environmental factors, and also needs more coffee.
@UW: we’re not in a Kansas economy, anymore.
Nobody needs anyone to point it out, Yogi. Your ignorance is on full display. You don’t know about the topic you are commenting on.
Republicans slashed taxes under Reagan and the growth of the economy slowed incredibly. They came to their senses and began raising taxes again, little by little 13 times and, weirdly enough, the economy started improving.
Slashing taxes in a healthy economy is the worst idea ever. Slashing them in a poor economy doesn’t work either, but at least it sounds right in that instance.
Wealth inequality will continue to skyrocket. The Republican yqx plan will only exacerbate that fact.
Giving somebody a $500 tax benefit while slashing social services they rely on is NOT a net gain. Giving them a few hundred dollars a year will do nothing to pull them out of debt, and raise their social strata. With stupid ideas and policies like this, it’s no wonder America’s upward mobility is far worse than many other developed nations.
The person who is clueless is the one who didn’t read my post to see I was questioning the definition of ‘small business’, not ‘pass-through’.
Just passing-through to troll again, UnWittingly?
I am confident that you are a Progressive troll from the Soros camp trying to disrupt and spread disinformation. There is overwhelming evidence that Progressive taxation does not help, but rather deters economic growth in the country. I am sure you must have loved all those 1.5%-2% GDP’s of the last 8 years, record Food Stamp growth, 95 million on the sidelines not working, doubling the National Debt without creating meaningful job growth. Time to go in a different direction, Progressivism had its chance and failed miserably. Get behind the President and let’s get moving again.
Do tell, Agent. How will this tax plan fix anything you mentioned in your last post?
The JFC report about this adding hundreds of billions to the debt (trillions?) said that it wasn’t going to add so much to the debt even factoring in all the projected growth, but instead that there will be no growth.
Giving more money to the people who choose to offshore it and hoard it won’t magically flip a switch and cause some hiring spree, increased wages, and so on. It won’t happen. Especially when robotics and artificial intelligence is going to replace many more jobs than could ever hope to be created under voodoo economics most rosy projections.
Get real.
Tax cuts yielding revenue gains was twice proven, by Kennedy’s tax cuts (via Johnson, ’64) and Reagan’s tax cuts (’86).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1964
Excerpt of pertinent section:
Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy’s goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]
The stated goals of the tax cuts were to raise personal incomes, increase consumption, and increase capital investments. Evidence shows that these goals were exceeded by large degree with the combination of tax cuts and domestic spending programs President Johnson advocated, such as Medicare.[4] Unemployment fell from 5.2% in 1964 to 4.5% in 1965, and fell to 3.8% in 1966.[4][5]
***************************************************************
Initial estimates predicted a loss of revenue as a result of the tax cuts, however, tax revenue increased in 1964 and 1965.[4][6]
***************************************************************
_______________________________________________________________
This isn’t early 1930’s Germany where repeated lies will be accepted as truth.
Finally, you can read this, to pick out the negative impacts of Reagan’s Tax Cuts in 1986 (not 1981):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
Did you find any negative impacts, like a ‘nearly destroyed economy like in Kansas’? I thought not. Toto; we’re not in Kansas (economic conditions) anymore!
If you’re a Socialist and don’t like bad news, skip the ‘Results’ section of the Reaganomics Wiki page linked above.
Read the results sections of these two summaries by a LEFT WING website and tell us where results were adverse to businesses, individuals, or the USA:
ht tp s:// en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1964
excerpt:
The stated goals of the tax cuts were to raise personal incomes, increase consumption, and increase capital investments. Evidence shows that these goals were exceeded by large degree with the combination of tax cuts and domestic spending programs President Johnson advocated, such as Medicare.[4] Unemployment fell from 5.2% in 1964 to 4.5% in 1965, and fell to 3.8% in 1966.[4][5]
****************************************************************
Initial estimates predicted a loss of revenue as a result of the tax cuts, however, tax revenue increased in 1964 and 1965.[4][6]
****************************************************************
ht tp s:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
Oddly, no summary judgement is given by Wiki authors on Reagan’s tax cut plan, as compared to the great results reported for Kennedy’s tax cuts. Could that be because they are from different political parties, one of which Wiki authors suport and the other which Wiki authors do not like?
Here’s more to consider:
ht tp s:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
This page, too, has little commentary on the effectiveness of Reaganomics, despite the government stats readily available to show the impacts. The majority of stats and judgements are impartial when positive results occurred, and mostly negative when negative results occurred. So, for an unbiased report on the TRA-86, look to places other than Wiki.
Polar, all we need to know for sure is that if Nancy Pelosi-Galore thinks the tax bill is “Armageddon”, it must be actually great and will restore the country to fiscal health.
How can any entity restore their fiscal health by increasing their spending while decreasing their revenue?
I am old enough to recall Republicans being against increasing the debt…last year.
Republicans WON’T increase the debt. That’s ANOTHER false claim by LIBITTERALS that ignores GDP growth that will be spurred on by the tax cuts …and repatriation of corporate capital from foreign lands – for MORE GDP growth.
Polar – let’s say the growth in GDP does not happen to the levels the Republican’s expect …
there’s no amendment stating something like “if this tax plan actually increases the debt due to slower than expected GDP growth, we will increase the taxation level to make sure it doesn’t add to the defect” …
how exactly could the budget NOT cause an increase in debt?
Isn’t the plan basically saying ‘we’re crossing our fingers for a ___% increase in GDP to make sure we don’t increase the debt’ without having any solidified plan in place to off-set the potential lower-than-anticipated GDP growth?
And yes, I saw you wrote “repatriation of corporate capital from foreign lands” but that’s at best a one-year stop gap solution. I’m thinking long term here
“Republicans WON’T increase the debt.” The FACT that the debt continues to increase is proof that you are wrong.
“That’s ANOTHER false claim by LIBITTERALS that ignores GDP growth that will be spurred on by the tax cuts …and repatriation of corporate capital from foreign lands – for MORE GDP growth.” Let’s say for the sake of argument that you and your Republican friends are wrong about your GDP predictions. What is the back-up plan?
@Ronnie & Rosie: We’ll assume the GDP does grow as planned, and will address any shortfalls that my occur if and when they occur. You two would have kept Christopher Columbus at the dock. As for me; I’m boarding the Tax Cuts Train, which will be rolling along on a course toward US prosperity.
Review economics of fiscal and monetary policy to understand how to jump-start a stagnant economy.
@Ron; capital repatriated from foreign lands can be used, over and over, year after year. Thus, you’re incorrect in categorizing it as a ‘1 year’ change. It remains in the hands of capitalists in much the same way a (new) hammer remains in the hands of a carpenter, year after year.
@Ron; re: your first Q: thru INCREASED VOLUME of business activity.
@Ron; how can the Republicans restore fiscal health by …
This is an example of the positive effect of regulatory roll-backs and the POTENTIAL for regressive taxes being rolled back….
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-jobs-report-november-2017-12
+228,000 jobs.
3 consec qtrs of GDP growth over 3% – not seen in over 12 yrs.
This is probably the most disproven theory in all of modern economics. But, it’s your preference, so to you it’s Absolute Fact passed down from God.
Kennedy, posthumously in ’64 thru Lock Box Raider Johnson.
Reagan in 1986; TRA-86.
Please post the disproof.
Look up this recent stud for rates around what we have now:
“CBO. (December 1,05). Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates”
From 2010, max tax receipts in the 30%+ range:
http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/RomerandRomerAERJune2010.pdf
Other countries:
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057%2F978-1-349-95121-5_2088-1
A poll of economists:
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/laffer-curve
In a recent poll of major economists every respondent but 1 said it would not work as they claim. The one said later they misread the question.
Now I’m sure you will start to provide sources for your stuff when asked instead of just disappearing like you usually do, right?
Now freak out and lie or change the topic based on your poor reading skills and education. Ready, set, durrrrr!
Proof is a CBO report? LMAO!
Berkley.edu? LMAO!
“Every major economist but one….” LMAO at the categorization of “major”.
Psst: you’ve discredited Faux News, without justification other than implied conservative, “right wing conspiracy against me and my husband” bias. Thus, others can automatically discredit CBO, Berkeley, … You haven’t proven anything with BIASED Left wing reports and opinion.
… meanwhile, I posted TWO POTUSES’ Tax cuts that led to prosperity.
I already know the response you’ll make about different economic conditions. There are economic policies to apply for those circumstances.
Libitterals fear the beneficial impacts of tax cuts for US citizens who pay income taxes, as well as others who do not. Further, if the SALT deduction is eliminated, US citizen taxpayers in blue states with highest tax rates will feel the pinch and vote to turn away from Democrat Socialist policies and politicians in subsequent elections. It’s the Democrat Socialists / Communists greatest fear, and they’re grasping at straws to come up with fake ‘reasons’ for RINO Congressmen to vote against it.
Nobody is arguing the tax cuts do not help the economy. The point is the impact on the debt and deficits. Historically (see tax cuts signed by Presidents Reagan and GW Bush and the ensuing increases in the national debt), tax cuts have not lead to enough economic growth to generate sufficient increased tax revenue to pay for themselves. Those are indisputable facts. If you want to argue that there were other factors that caused growth projections to not be met, fine.
Also, who gets the cuts matters. If you hand money to a profitable company or person who has so much money that they will only save more, cutting their taxes would not help. They will, and should, just pocket the extra money.
Polar, one of the worst things LBJ did while in office was to rob the Social Security Trust Fund and put it in the General Fund to pay for his “War on Poverty”. What a wonderful Progressive program that turned out to be. NOT!
Polar. Immediately discredit anything that you don’t agree with before looking at it.
Berkley is ranked in the top 5 in economics programs in the world.
ht tp://econphd.econwiki.com/rank/rallec.htm
Some have it first.
ht tps://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/economics-rankings
You ignore the survey of economists.
Berkeley is ranked in the top 5 Socialist colleges by Socialists. Nothing else need be said about it.
Further, the US is ranked #1 in World economy, and the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts are REAL WORLD, not theoretical, PROOF of tax cuts spurring economic growth. In this case, it will create the greatest flow of capital back to the US ever.
No one ‘lives their entire (economic) life’ at Berkeley…. they live in the real world. But, you and other Socialists may choose to hold onto your Socialist beliefs for as long as you like.
Like Kennedy, I’d support a corporate tax rate of 47%, a top marginal tax rate of 75%, and bottom rate of 14%. Those numbers worked well for us here in The Uniduh Schtathshs. Employment fell to 3.8% and revenue increased.
Polar, don’t you think it is ironic that Progressive Democrats are so concerned with deficits under this tax plan yet to be implemented when they had the biggest spender, taxer and deficit creator in office for 8 years and doubled the national debt?
We should wish them a Merry Resistance!
Agent,
Perhaps you need to read up on the deficit under Obama. Remember kids, deficit and debt aren’t the same thing!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/
Also, the economic conditions matter. When there is a giant economic crash, like the one created by Republicans and conservatives in 2008, deficit spending is a solution. I wanted more deficits and more debt under Obama. When the economy is recovered deficits aren’t always a good idea. I would be fine with more deficits if it was to actual programs that would help the economy instead of to cut programs that help the most vulnerable in order to help the richest few percent.
This tax plan will lead to more speculation in the financial markets, and another giant crash in a few years. The last one happened largely because the rich and Wall Street had so much they were engineering new things to bet on, eg derivatives, which created a crash. It will happen again, and the dumbest of the dumb here will blame Democrats, no matter what. Most of them are so brainwashed they will still probably blame Obama.
I am old enough to remember you voting for the Taxer in Chief twice and the country languishing for 8 very long years under that burden. We can tell you about the economics of tax cuts to spur the economy, create more jobs and therefore more tax revenue to the government, but we can’t force you to understand it. Once a Progressive, always one, right Ron?
Last I checked, per the Constitution, Congress is in charge of taxation. Have they changed the Constitution without telling anybody or are you just ignorant. I will let you decide.
With that in mind, which party has held the majority in Congress for the past 6 years? Hint: it was not the Democrats.
Question: How come the only administrations during which the debt more than doubled, also saw 2 of the largest tax cuts in history? Coincidence? I think not.
If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.
Veto power, Ron? The many vetoes of Obama, Bush Sr., Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Jr. are a sign of Congressional limitations.
But if the President vetos a bill, it can still become law if 2/3rds of the House & Senate approve it. In that case (even with a veto) the President isn’t actually in charge of taxation, just like Ron said the first time.
LOL @ grasping at infinitesimally small probability scenarios for a means to try to discredit my point.
FYI: ‘in charge of’ doesn’t exclude ‘control the end result’.
To recap:
Ron said “Congress is in charge of taxation”
PBR said “The Presidential veto is a sign of Congressional limitations [with regards to taxation]”
I said “Congress can veto the Presidential veto, thereby proving Congress is actually in charge of taxation, not the President”
PBR said “You’re grasping at straws”
I now say “I’m just telling you how the law works. The President clearly IS NOT in charge of taxes if the Presidential Veto can be overridden.
Congress can pass whatever tax law it wants without the President’s approval.
The President cannot pass whatever tax law he wants without Congress’s approval.
Clearly, Congress is in charge of taxes.
Which R or D party members will flip to overturn a POTUS veto?
Please list all of the tax cut bills that President Obama vetoed.
Ron, how stupid is your statement? Obama was protected by the now infamous Harry Reid from ever seeing the numerous bills the House sent over. They went in the trash never to be debated or voted on.
Agent,
Then blame Harry Reid for the tax laws during that time, not President Obama.
“They went in the trash never to be debated or voted on.” This just proves my point.
This is all you need to know Ron. The hardcore tea party types like Agent are chronically uninformed. They are a total waste unless you are mocking them.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-reveals-most-americans-dont-know-they-got-a-tax-cut/
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/a-bogus-tax-attack-against-obama/
ht tp://www.newsweek.com/trump-tax-cuts-obama-paul-ryan-699181
@Ron: re: Dingy Harry Reid’s control of The US Senate’s agenda is an extension of Obama’s will via the respondeat superior principle.
“Dingy Harry Reid’s control of The US Senate’s agenda is an extension of Obama’s will via the respondent superior principle.” And you accuse others of grasping at straws and going down rabbit holes.
Tell the Mad Hatter that I said, “Hi”.
Yeah, and tell that caterpillar he still owes Agent $50. He’s not running a dang charity around here!
Please tell us all the tax cut bills President Obama proposed during his tenure to help recover the economy from mediocrity.
Agent,
First, presidents do not propose bills.
Second, https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issues/corporate-taxes/analysis-of-president-obamas-corporate-tax-reform-plan/
here’s another for you: http://www.newsweek.com/trump-tax-cuts-obama-paul-ryan-699181
Mr. Confused, you may want to check out that Congress is in the process of revising the Progressive Tax Code as we speak. Trump go the ball rolling and has put pressure on to change it, but Congress has to do it and put it on his desk for signature. Unlike Obama who promised to veto anything sent to him on the Healthcare law, Trump says send it to me and if acceptable, I will sign it.
So we agree – Congress is in charge of rewriting the Tax Code, not the President.
Sure Confused, I never said our great President was writing the new Tax Law. All he did was set the parameters of what he would like to see for the American people to help out the middle class and business. Quit trying to argue the point.
I was simply responding to the point I made that you replied to regarding who actually makes the tax laws. But hey. We agree. So let’s just stifle the attitude, STFU, and move on, ya?
Progressive Tax Code – Bad for country.
Simplified Republican Code with tax cuts for Middle Class and business – Good
Got it yet or do you want to argue some more?
Agent,
You do realize that both of the current tax laws are still progressive, right?
Honest question: If the debt is higher on 11/3/2020 than it is now, will you still be blaming President Obama or does that fall on our current president?
come on ron, you already know the answer. it will be the democrats fault for not working with the republican majority in both the house and senate
@Ron; you’re parsing words again. Rabbit hole time for you.
Confused said: “So let’s just stifle the attitude, STFU, and move on, ya?”
Frustrated by the inability to BOT-censor conservatives.
I said that because Agent and I agreed but he was still butting heads with me – he should not continue to argue once it is determined there is an agreement on the point being argued
Yogi–we’ve been over this before–THERE ARE NO BOTS. Nobody on here who downvotes you has anything to do with George Soros, nobody asks their old high-school or college friends to come on here and downvote you, and there’s not conspiracy to silence conservative voices on the Insurance Journal. I personally downvote you and anyone else whenever they go off topic or insult others. I also upvote posts (including yours and even Agent’s) when they’re funny, witty, or make a good point. Play nice or don’t play.
Yogi–you post under at least 5 different names. Does that mean you’re switching names and addy’s to downvote multiple times?
I upvoted your last post.
Confused, you didn’t even realize you insulted me, right? By the way, what does move on ya even mean? Go back and learn proper English if you want to argue.
No, we don’t agree with any rabbit hole arguments you make…. it is clear Congress must actually write the bills, but POTUS signs them into law AT HIS WILL.
I think you might be misunderstanding what Confused was arguing.
See, if the President vetos a tax bill, it can still become a law if Congress overrides the President’s veto.
The President can do absolutely nothing and a tax bill can become law.
The President can do everything and a tax bill WON’T become law if Congress votes against it.
Hence, Congress makes the tax law and not the President.
Please post the date of the last veto override. I believe it was a veto by BO that was almost unanimously overridden.
/THAT was my intent regarding the 2/3 threshold being nearly impossible to breach.
I agree the threshold is nearly impossible to reach, but that’s besides the point – nobody is arguing it WILL happen or that it HAS happened before.
The simple fact is that Congress CAN veto a President’s veto on a tax bill and implement their bill in spite of the President’s veto. That’s all that matters when trying to figure out who actually holds the final say for making the tax laws in our country.
9/28/2016. The one and only time one of the 12 vetoes by President Obama was overridden. President GW Bush had 4 of his vetoes overridden and Reagan had 9.
http://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidential-Vetoes/Presidential-Vetoes/
The 2/3 threshold may be NEARLY impossible to breach. However, there is a 0% chance of a president enacting any law without Congress.
Now do you understand why I said you cannot put tax policy solely on any POTUS? That was the point.
Rosenblatt, please give us the tax bill that Obama proposed to help the Middle Class and Business in his 8 long years. Ready, set, go.
Fair enough. But you still have not answered any of my questions.