(12-21-2017 07:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 07:16 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 03:37 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 07:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I keep reading all these complaints that the new tax law is "partisan" and worse. Remember back in 2009 when we decided we needed to reduce the deficit and we formed the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission to come up with an approach? And the Domenici-Rivlin group sprung off from that as another bipartisan look at the problem?
So we had two bipartisan and very well informed looks at the problem. Interestingly, on the tax side both came up with the same approach, with slight variations--lower corporate tax rates to world standards, and on the individual side lower and flatten rates and get rid of itemized deductions, and go from a worldwide to a territorial taxing system.
Now take the "bipartisan" Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin approaches and lay them side by side with what was just passed by congress. Guess what? Except for the fact that Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin lowered and flattened individual rates even further, and got rid of even more itemized deductions, they are basically the same approaches. One other difference, Domenici-Rivlin lowered the deficits even more by adding a consumption tax, a move that I would have approved.
So, could somebody explain to me how what was a bipartisan idea in 2009-10 became somehow "partisan" and "hateful" less than a decade later?
I've said it before but will repeat it here. When republicans regained control of the house in 2011, their first moves should have been to pass French Bismarck health care, a universal basic income, and some form of Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or the best of both. I wonder how easy it would have bene to characterize a bipartisan approach as "partisan" and "hateful" back then? Not that I don't think the democrats would have tried.

Well they reduced rates but they didn't do a lot to close loopholes or end expenditures. Things such as eliminating the capital gains rate and increasing the social security wage base. Not to mention hundreds (literally hundreds) of industry specific deductions and credits that were left untouched and were called for to end. Bowles-Simpson's tax plan called for raising revenues by 600 Billion over 10 years, this plan will cost 1.5 trillion over the same period. That's a 2 trillion dollar difference! You can't be that confused about this. If so, I could point to other provisions such as opening the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve for drilling and ending the cap on executive pay.

The difference is that Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin factored in increased growth, whereas the static scoring for this bill does not. That plus the fact that this bill didn't get rid of nearly as many deductions and Bowles-Simpson did.

The dynamic scoring of the bill was still 1 trillion I beleive. And neither scores account for the fact that they set many of the provisions to sunset to get it through the senates procedural limit of 1.5 T over ten years so the actual costs associated with the law are even higher. The corporate tax cuts suggested in Simpson Bowls plan were designed to be revenue neutral. This law isn't even pretending to be. The growth required for this law to pay for itself would be amazing (I.e. unbelievable) but it still wouldn't achieve $1 towards deficit reduction so the comparison to Simpson Bowles doesn't really make sense. If you don't beleive me you can hear it from the horses' mouths.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washing...story.html

The basic approach was still the same--lower both individual and corporate tax rates substantially and broaden the base by eliminating deductions. The sausage making aspect of lawmaking is that they couldn't get rid of as many deductions as Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin did. But conceptually they were the same. I don't really see why anyone who supported this could not have supported that with proper leadership (which republicans haven't had).

One thing, this is a lot closer to Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin than the Obama plan.

What Obama plan - he never had a plan other than to spend more to appease his constituent groups while not having the political gonads to tell everyone he needs to raise taxes on everyone to pay for it......

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/fifth-th...ssage.html

Two large companies paying bonuses and raising wages as a result of the tax bill passage.
Big mean corporations.

(12-21-2017 07:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 07:16 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 03:37 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 07:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I keep reading all these complaints that the new tax law is "partisan" and worse. Remember back in 2009 when we decided we needed to reduce the deficit and we formed the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission to come up with an approach? And the Domenici-Rivlin group sprung off from that as another bipartisan look at the problem?
So we had two bipartisan and very well informed looks at the problem. Interestingly, on the tax side both came up with the same approach, with slight variations--lower corporate tax rates to world standards, and on the individual side lower and flatten rates and get rid of itemized deductions, and go from a worldwide to a territorial taxing system.
Now take the "bipartisan" Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin approaches and lay them side by side with what was just passed by congress. Guess what? Except for the fact that Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin lowered and flattened individual rates even further, and got rid of even more itemized deductions, they are basically the same approaches. One other difference, Domenici-Rivlin lowered the deficits even more by adding a consumption tax, a move that I would have approved.
So, could somebody explain to me how what was a bipartisan idea in 2009-10 became somehow "partisan" and "hateful" less than a decade later?
I've said it before but will repeat it here. When republicans regained control of the house in 2011, their first moves should have been to pass French Bismarck health care, a universal basic income, and some form of Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or the best of both. I wonder how easy it would have bene to characterize a bipartisan approach as "partisan" and "hateful" back then? Not that I don't think the democrats would have tried.

Well they reduced rates but they didn't do a lot to close loopholes or end expenditures. Things such as eliminating the capital gains rate and increasing the social security wage base. Not to mention hundreds (literally hundreds) of industry specific deductions and credits that were left untouched and were called for to end. Bowles-Simpson's tax plan called for raising revenues by 600 Billion over 10 years, this plan will cost 1.5 trillion over the same period. That's a 2 trillion dollar difference! You can't be that confused about this. If so, I could point to other provisions such as opening the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve for drilling and ending the cap on executive pay.

The difference is that Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin factored in increased growth, whereas the static scoring for this bill does not. That plus the fact that this bill didn't get rid of nearly as many deductions and Bowles-Simpson did.

The dynamic scoring of the bill was still 1 trillion I beleive. And neither scores account for the fact that they set many of the provisions to sunset to get it through the senates procedural limit of 1.5 T over ten years so the actual costs associated with the law are even higher. The corporate tax cuts suggested in Simpson Bowls plan were designed to be revenue neutral. This law isn't even pretending to be. The growth required for this law to pay for itself would be amazing (I.e. unbelievable) but it still wouldn't achieve $1 towards deficit reduction so the comparison to Simpson Bowles doesn't really make sense. If you don't beleive me you can hear it from the horses' mouths.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washing...story.html

The basic approach was still the same--lower both individual and corporate tax rates substantially and broaden the base by eliminating deductions. The sausage making aspect of lawmaking is that they couldn't get rid of as many deductions as Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin did. But conceptually they were the same. I don't really see why anyone who supported this could not have supported that with proper leadership (which republicans haven't had).

One thing, this is a lot closer to Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin than the Obama plan.

The Bowles Simpson plan was a tax increase. A massive tax increase. This is a tax cut. A massive tax cut. The 600 billion figure I quoted earlier regarding the revenue raised from Simpson Bowles was assuming the lapse of the Bush tax cuts as a baseline. Bush tax cuts were valued at around 2.5-3 trillion over 10 years, so from the point they were sitting the were suggesting raising tax revenues 3-3.5 trillion (much more than Obama proposed). I understand what you're saying but the differences are huge and more than enough to if not make the Democrats' consternation justifiable in your opinion then at least understandable. The revenue neutral part was kind of their sticking point in corporate tax reform. And while many from both parties applauded the bipartisan efforts to reduce deficits very few from either party had the cahones to vote for it. It probably would have been better for the country but each and every one of those deductions were hard earned and payed for by special interest lobbyists. It's a shame really. If healthcare reform had been achieved through a bipartisan approach we'd likely have something that was still working instead of the broken system we're laboring under currently. And I fear the same fate for this law for the same reasons. The deficit will increase under this plan unless they make massive cuts. Either will have negative effects on the economy that will offset some of the growth tax reform can produce. That and businesses have to be asking themselves how much they can trust whether these changes are here to stay. Moving and establishing operations are long term commitments, this bill could be rolled back in 5 years time.

(12-21-2017 10:01 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  The Bowles Simpson plan was a tax increase. A massive tax increase. This is a tax cut. A massive tax cut. The 600 billion figure I quoted earlier regarding the revenue raised from Simpson Bowles was assuming the lapse of the Bush tax cuts as a baseline. Bush tax cuts were valued at around 2.5-3 trillion over 10 years, so from the point they were sitting the were suggesting raising tax revenues 3-3.5 trillion (much more than Obama proposed). I understand what you're saying but the differences are huge and more than enough to if not make the Democrats' consternation justifiable in your opinion then at least understandable. The revenue neutral part was kind of their sticking point in corporate tax reform. And while many from both parties applauded the bipartisan efforts to reduce deficits very few from either party had the cahones to vote for it. It probably would have been better for the country but each and every one of those deductions were hard earned and payed for by special interest lobbyists. It's a shame really. If healthcare reform had been achieved through a bipartisan approach we'd likely have something that was still working instead of the broken system we're laboring under currently. And I fear the same fate for this law for the same reasons. The deficit will increase under this plan unless they make massive cuts. Either will have negative effects on the economy that will offset some of the growth tax reform can produce. That and businesses have to be asking themselves how much they can trust whether these changes are here to stay. Moving and establishing operations are long term commitments, this bill could be rolled back in 5 years time.

Bowles-Simpson was a revenue increase but a tax rate cut. That's the kind of thing the left says can't happen and the right says will happen. The answer is that sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. Bowled-Simpson made it happen by getting rid of most itemized deductions. This is the same approach that Bill Bradley, Dick Gephardt, and Ronald Reagan used in 1986--lower rates and broaden the base.

Here republicans didn't broaden the base enough to get revenue increases on a static basis. What will be the final bottom line will depend on how much investment and growth it will bring back to the US. Early returns are looking good, and Europe seems to be worried, but the will tell.

My point was how similar the three approaches are conceptually. When Obama and the democrats were calling for increasing tax rates, these approaches all went the other way. I'd have favored getting rid of more itemized deductions, but the politics were not right. Had that happened, then the three would be almost identical, except the individual rates would still be high.

(12-21-2017 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 02:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 08:41 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  The simple answer is that it absolutely doesn't matter what is proposed by the GOP or anyone with an "R" in front of their name. It's going to be attacked, and attacked fiercely.
We are at a point in this country where it honestly wouldn't matter what is said or done by an "R", as the left will brand them racists, sexists, middle-class haters and the pundits over at CNN and other mainstream networks will eat it up like Halloween candy on Nov 1.

Let's not forget that this all started when the Republicans vowed to oppose Obama no matter what.
Obama spoke with the republicans and promised them he would support their ideas if they were good ones. He did and they walked away from their own legislation in order to oppose him even when he agreed with him.
That is why we are where we are at now.
Thanks republicans.

What republican ideas did he support? When and how?

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on him to answer if I were you. He's either going to have to cycle through a ton of leftist talking points or else he's going to have to craft a lie.

(12-21-2017 09:33 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/fifth-th...ssage.html

Two large companies paying bonuses and raising wages as a result of the tax bill passage.
Big mean corporations.

Yea but see that don't help those who don't work and that's who we need to help, screw the working person.

(12-21-2017 07:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 05:03 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is that they kept this a secret from the Democrats because of the Mandate that was snuck in there on purpose. Republicans agreed with the Democrats about taken out the loopholes. The rich could claimed a private jets as deductible for travel expenses. The Republicans agreed that the reforms should removed these loopholes, but they did not. As it is, the wealthy and nig corporation got a major gift while everybody else got the shaft. If you do not take out these loopholes? The wealthy could pay little to no taxes at all. Second, there is no guarantee that they will not hike minimum wages, bonuses or hire new employees.

I would strongly suggest that you read what is actually in the bill rather than rely on some hyperbolic interpretation by a biased reporter.

What "Mandate that was snuck in there on purpose"?
How does getting a tax reduction constitute getting the shaft?
What loopholes mean that the "wealthy" pay little or no taxes at all?
And while we don't have a "guarantee" that they will hike wages or employ more people, that is certainly the most likely result.

The tax loopholes have been in there for several decades for the wealthy could deduct private jets and other things as important spending. How many middle class and the poor own a private jet and all that? The state property tax that you could write off would effect and hurt the poor and middle class as well in some states. In most states, the property tax is not just on your house, but other things you own like cars, boats, and so forth.

(12-22-2017 01:10 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 07:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 05:03 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is that they kept this a secret from the Democrats because of the Mandate that was snuck in there on purpose. Republicans agreed with the Democrats about taken out the loopholes. The rich could claimed a private jets as deductible for travel expenses. The Republicans agreed that the reforms should removed these loopholes, but they did not. As it is, the wealthy and nig corporation got a major gift while everybody else got the shaft. If you do not take out these loopholes? The wealthy could pay little to no taxes at all. Second, there is no guarantee that they will not hike minimum wages, bonuses or hire new employees.

I would strongly suggest that you read what is actually in the bill rather than rely on some hyperbolic interpretation by a biased reporter.
What "Mandate that was snuck in there on purpose"?
How does getting a tax reduction constitute getting the shaft?
What loopholes mean that the "wealthy" pay little or no taxes at all?
And while we don't have a "guarantee" that they will hike wages or employ more people, that is certainly the most likely result.

The tax loopholes have been in there for several decades for the wealthy could deduct private jets and other things as important spending. How many middle class and the poor own a private jet and all that? The state property tax that you could write off would effect and hurt the poor and middle class as well in some states. In most states, the property tax is not just on your house, but other things you own like cars, boats, and so forth.

You do realize that to deduct the cost of a private jet, the jet has to be used in the business, and any mom-business use cannot be deducted, right? If you have an earth moving company and you buy a new Caterpillar, you understand that you get to deduct the cost, right? Same principle.

And how many poor people pay more than $10,000 in property taxes? If you're paying that much in taxes , you probably are not poor--or middle class.

(12-22-2017 12:07 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 09:33 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/fifth-th...ssage.html

Two large companies paying bonuses and raising wages as a result of the tax bill passage.
Big mean corporations.

Yea but see that don't help those who don't work and that's who we need to help, screw the working person.

More disposable income means more spending. More spending means more jobs for those without them.

(12-21-2017 11:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 10:01 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  The Bowles Simpson plan was a tax increase. A massive tax increase. This is a tax cut. A massive tax cut. The 600 billion figure I quoted earlier regarding the revenue raised from Simpson Bowles was assuming the lapse of the Bush tax cuts as a baseline. Bush tax cuts were valued at around 2.5-3 trillion over 10 years, so from the point they were sitting the were suggesting raising tax revenues 3-3.5 trillion (much more than Obama proposed). I understand what you're saying but the differences are huge and more than enough to if not make the Democrats' consternation justifiable in your opinion then at least understandable. The revenue neutral part was kind of their sticking point in corporate tax reform. And while many from both parties applauded the bipartisan efforts to reduce deficits very few from either party had the cahones to vote for it. It probably would have been better for the country but each and every one of those deductions were hard earned and payed for by special interest lobbyists. It's a shame really. If healthcare reform had been achieved through a bipartisan approach we'd likely have something that was still working instead of the broken system we're laboring under currently. And I fear the same fate for this law for the same reasons. The deficit will increase under this plan unless they make massive cuts. Either will have negative effects on the economy that will offset some of the growth tax reform can produce. That and businesses have to be asking themselves how much they can trust whether these changes are here to stay. Moving and establishing operations are long term commitments, this bill could be rolled back in 5 years time.

Bowles-Simpson was a revenue increase but a tax rate cut. That's the kind of thing the left says can't happen and the right says will happen. The answer is that sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. Bowled-Simpson made it happen by getting rid of most itemized deductions. This is the same approach that Bill Bradley, Dick Gephardt, and Ronald Reagan used in 1986--lower rates and broaden the base.

Here republicans didn't broaden the base enough to get revenue increases on a static basis. What will be the final bottom line will depend on how much investment and growth it will bring back to the US. Early returns are looking good, and Europe seems to be worried, but the will tell.

My point was how similar the three approaches are conceptually. When Obama and the democrats were calling for increasing tax rates, these approaches all went the other way. I'd have favored getting rid of more itemized deductions, but the politics were not right. Had that happened, then the three would be almost identical, except the individual rates would still be high.

There's a difference between lowering taxes and expecting growth caused by a less burdensome taxing system to increase revenues and actually increasing the effective tax rate while lowering the nominal rate via ending deductions thus creating more revenues. The first can be argued, the second is just math. You need only look at AMT to see the proof of that. Less deductions and lower rates lead to higher taxes for some taxpayers in the same year, growth is not part of the equation. This law is an example of the first, Simpson Bowles' approach was the second. The left is skeptical of the first but weary of the second, not because they don't believe that it will increase revenues but because they believe it will disproportionately effect lower income taxpayers.

Let's put this in perspective. Simpson Bowles identified nearly 18 Trillion worth of tax breaks to eliminate. Current Bill has around 3.5 T. And that's not accounting for the breaks that they actually expand in the bill: increased Child Tax Credit, expansion of section 179, accelerated recovery period for 1250 property, ending the limitation on executive pay deduction, etc. The net effect is that there's very little in the way of "expanding the base" in this law, as Simpson and Bowles say in their op-ed they took the "goodies" but refrained from making any of the hard choices. So the question isn't really why the Democrats are opposed to this bill, it seems obvious. The question is why would the Republicans have supported Simpson Bowles' proposal when it would have increased the tax rate (effective tax rate that is) on a lot of people and businesses? The answer is they didn't. But that was part of the "grand bargain" if they were going to get the Democrats to seriously consider entitlements reform. Neither jumped though and instead they came up with automatic across the board cuts (which this law will trigger). I'm sure they'll take up entitlements reform soon (a real tough sell) but don't be confused when the Democrats oppose that as well because you can be sure defense spending cuts won't be a part of it and those cuts also won't be anywhere near the bipartisan proposals brought forth 7 years ago.

(12-22-2017 09:43 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  There's a difference between lowering taxes and expecting growth caused by a less burdensome taxing system to increase revenues and actually increasing the effective tax rate while lowering the nominal rate via ending deductions thus creating more revenues. The first can be argued, the second is just math. You need only look at AMT to see the proof of that. Less deductions and lower rates lead to higher taxes for some taxpayers in the same year, growth is not part of the equation. This law is an example of the first, Simpson Bowles' approach was the second. The left is skeptical of the first but weary of the second, not because they don't believe that it will increase revenues but because they believe it will disproportionately effect lower income taxpayers.
Let's put this in perspective. Simpson Bowles identified nearly 18 Trillion worth of tax breaks to eliminate. Current Bill has around 3.5 T. And that's not accounting for the breaks that they actually expand in the bill: increased Child Tax Credit, expansion of section 179, accelerated recovery period for 1250 property, ending the limitation on executive pay deduction, etc. The net effect is that there's very little in the way of "expanding the base" in this law, as Simpson and Bowles say in their op-ed they took the "goodies" but refrained from making any of the hard choices. So the question isn't really why the Democrats are opposed to this bill, it seems obvious. The question is why would the Republicans have supported Simpson Bowles' proposal when it would have increased the tax rate (effective tax rate that is) on a lot of people and businesses? The answer is they didn't. But that was part of the "grand bargain" if they were going to get the Democrats to seriously consider entitlements reform. Neither jumped though and instead they came up with automatic across the board cuts (which this law will trigger). I'm sure they'll take up entitlements reform soon (a real tough sell) but don't be confused when the Democrats oppose that as well because you can be sure defense spending cuts won't be a part of it and those cuts also won't be anywhere near the bipartisan proposals brought forth 7 years ago.

My only point was that the lowering of tax rates was championed by both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, when democrats have been clamoring constantly for raising rates as the only solution. The unfortunate political reality is that demagogues abound to invoke class warfare whenever any changes are made to tax laws, and that limits the extent to which deductions can be eliminated.

I supported the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin approach. We did it in 1986, with Reagan combining forces with Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt, and we had a decade and a half of growth. Europe taxes that way, even more so than we do, with a consumption tax too, which is another idea I support.

I expect that this law will reduce revenues for a year or two, but I do expect that increased growth will make it ultimately revenue neutral or positive. It will be hard to pull the data out of the noise, but that is the result that I expect.

We have been losing tax revenues to high rates, compared to the rest of the world, particularly on the corporate side. And the unfortunate knock-on effect as that we lose middle class jobs in the proposition. I do think this bill will help the economy. Maybe not in time for the 2018 midterms, but ultimately yes.

(12-20-2017 11:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:11 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Nanci Pelosi just called this tax bill more shameful than the Chinese exclusion act..

I swear The Onion staff writes her speeches and talking points.

(12-22-2017 09:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 09:43 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  There's a difference between lowering taxes and expecting growth caused by a less burdensome taxing system to increase revenues and actually increasing the effective tax rate while lowering the nominal rate via ending deductions thus creating more revenues. The first can be argued, the second is just math. You need only look at AMT to see the proof of that. Less deductions and lower rates lead to higher taxes for some taxpayers in the same year, growth is not part of the equation. This law is an example of the first, Simpson Bowles' approach was the second. The left is skeptical of the first but weary of the second, not because they don't believe that it will increase revenues but because they believe it will disproportionately effect lower income taxpayers.
Let's put this in perspective. Simpson Bowles identified nearly 18 Trillion worth of tax breaks to eliminate. Current Bill has around 3.5 T. And that's not accounting for the breaks that they actually expand in the bill: increased Child Tax Credit, expansion of section 179, accelerated recovery period for 1250 property, ending the limitation on executive pay deduction, etc. The net effect is that there's very little in the way of "expanding the base" in this law, as Simpson and Bowles say in their op-ed they took the "goodies" but refrained from making any of the hard choices. So the question isn't really why the Democrats are opposed to this bill, it seems obvious. The question is why would the Republicans have supported Simpson Bowles' proposal when it would have increased the tax rate (effective tax rate that is) on a lot of people and businesses? The answer is they didn't. But that was part of the "grand bargain" if they were going to get the Democrats to seriously consider entitlements reform. Neither jumped though and instead they came up with automatic across the board cuts (which this law will trigger). I'm sure they'll take up entitlements reform soon (a real tough sell) but don't be confused when the Democrats oppose that as well because you can be sure defense spending cuts won't be a part of it and those cuts also won't be anywhere near the bipartisan proposals brought forth 7 years ago.

My only point was that the lowering of tax rates was championed by both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, when democrats have been clamoring constantly for raising rates as the only solution. The unfortunate political reality is that demagogues abound to invoke class warfare whenever any changes are made to tax laws, and that limits the extent to which deductions can be eliminated.

I supported the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin approach. We did it in 1986, with Reagan combining forces with Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt, and we had a decade and a half of growth. Europe taxes that way, even more so than we do, with a consumption tax too, which is another idea I support.

I expect that this law will reduce revenues for a year or two, but I do expect that increased growth will make it ultimately revenue neutral or positive. It will be hard to pull the data out of the noise, but that is the result that I expect.

We have been losing tax revenues to high rates, compared to the rest of the world, particularly on the corporate side. And the unfortunate knock-on effect as that we lose middle class jobs in the proposition. I do think this bill will help the economy. Maybe not in time for the 2018 midterms, but ultimately yes.

Lowering rates is only half the equation and Obama and other Democrats were open to corporate tax reform on a revenue neutral basis. They believe in a progressive individual tax plan to be sure.

"demagogues abound to invoke class warfare whenever any changes are made to tax laws, and that limits the extent to which deductions can be eliminated." - Seriously? Lobbyists and special interests limit what deductions can be eliminated. You say you support Simpson Bowles, you should read more about their proposals for expanding the EIC and establishing credits for charitable deductions and mortgage interest for lower & middle income taxpayers. Lowering rates and eliminating deductions WILL adversely effect these groups more and in any bill typically steps are taken to mitigate. In the current law they increased the standard deduction.

Is it class warfare that keeps sweetheart deals for oil & gas and real estate developers? Sure private jets are used in business but probably so are hookers, the question is whether they're "ordinary and necessary" business expenses, otherwise should taxpayers be subsidizing their use? The private jet manufacturing industry lobbying groups say they are and therefore so does congress. I'm guessing the ladies of the night don't spend as much in lobbying efforts. And God forbid you're in the service industry. The current tax code is strife with chosen winners and losers and you're going to say "class warfare' is the reason. That's funny.

I hope I've helped clear up some of your confusion

Just got a news alert that the President officially signed the bill into law

(12-22-2017 11:22 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 09:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 09:43 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  There's a difference between lowering taxes and expecting growth caused by a less burdensome taxing system to increase revenues and actually increasing the effective tax rate while lowering the nominal rate via ending deductions thus creating more revenues. The first can be argued, the second is just math. You need only look at AMT to see the proof of that. Less deductions and lower rates lead to higher taxes for some taxpayers in the same year, growth is not part of the equation. This law is an example of the first, Simpson Bowles' approach was the second. The left is skeptical of the first but weary of the second, not because they don't believe that it will increase revenues but because they believe it will disproportionately effect lower income taxpayers.
Let's put this in perspective. Simpson Bowles identified nearly 18 Trillion worth of tax breaks to eliminate. Current Bill has around 3.5 T. And that's not accounting for the breaks that they actually expand in the bill: increased Child Tax Credit, expansion of section 179, accelerated recovery period for 1250 property, ending the limitation on executive pay deduction, etc. The net effect is that there's very little in the way of "expanding the base" in this law, as Simpson and Bowles say in their op-ed they took the "goodies" but refrained from making any of the hard choices. So the question isn't really why the Democrats are opposed to this bill, it seems obvious. The question is why would the Republicans have supported Simpson Bowles' proposal when it would have increased the tax rate (effective tax rate that is) on a lot of people and businesses? The answer is they didn't. But that was part of the "grand bargain" if they were going to get the Democrats to seriously consider entitlements reform. Neither jumped though and instead they came up with automatic across the board cuts (which this law will trigger). I'm sure they'll take up entitlements reform soon (a real tough sell) but don't be confused when the Democrats oppose that as well because you can be sure defense spending cuts won't be a part of it and those cuts also won't be anywhere near the bipartisan proposals brought forth 7 years ago.

My only point was that the lowering of tax rates was championed by both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, when democrats have been clamoring constantly for raising rates as the only solution. The unfortunate political reality is that demagogues abound to invoke class warfare whenever any changes are made to tax laws, and that limits the extent to which deductions can be eliminated.

I supported the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin approach. We did it in 1986, with Reagan combining forces with Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt, and we had a decade and a half of growth. Europe taxes that way, even more so than we do, with a consumption tax too, which is another idea I support.

I expect that this law will reduce revenues for a year or two, but I do expect that increased growth will make it ultimately revenue neutral or positive. It will be hard to pull the data out of the noise, but that is the result that I expect.

We have been losing tax revenues to high rates, compared to the rest of the world, particularly on the corporate side. And the unfortunate knock-on effect as that we lose middle class jobs in the proposition. I do think this bill will help the economy. Maybe not in time for the 2018 midterms, but ultimately yes.

Lowering rates is only half the equation and Obama and other Democrats were open to corporate tax reform on a revenue neutral basis. They believe in a progressive individual tax plan to be sure.

"demagogues abound to invoke class warfare whenever any changes are made to tax laws, and that limits the extent to which deductions can be eliminated." - Seriously? Lobbyists and special interests limit what deductions can be eliminated. You say you support Simpson Bowles, you should read more about their proposals for expanding the EIC and establishing credits for charitable deductions and mortgage interest for lower & middle income taxpayers. Lowering rates and eliminating deductions WILL adversely effect these groups more and in any bill typically steps are taken to mitigate. In the current law they increased the standard deduction.

Is it class warfare that keeps sweetheart deals for oil & gas and real estate developers? Sure private jets are used in business but probably so are hookers, the question is whether they're "ordinary and necessary" business expenses, otherwise should taxpayers be subsidizing their use? The private jet manufacturing industry lobbying groups say they are and therefore so does congress. I'm guessing the ladies of the night don't spend as much in lobbying efforts. And God forbid you're in the service industry. The current tax code is strife with chosen winners and losers and you're going to say "class warfare' is the reason. That's funny.

I hope I've helped clear up some of your confusion

Neither side of the aisle in congress are willing to give up the "special" tax breaks written into the tax code that lower the tax burden of certain groups. This power (the ability to pick winners and losers) is what drives the money machine that is Washington DC. You think that any of them, both sides, are willing to give up that ability?? Not a chance.

What we have now are both sides pretending to act in the best interests of John Q. Public while quietly, out of sight, cutting deals that keep the lobby money spigot open and flowing.

Hopefully, this legislation is just step one to actually revising the tax code, but I'm not holding my breath that congress will ever do anything that takes power out of their hands......

(12-22-2017 11:51 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 11:22 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 09:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 09:43 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  There's a difference between lowering taxes and expecting growth caused by a less burdensome taxing system to increase revenues and actually increasing the effective tax rate while lowering the nominal rate via ending deductions thus creating more revenues. The first can be argued, the second is just math. You need only look at AMT to see the proof of that. Less deductions and lower rates lead to higher taxes for some taxpayers in the same year, growth is not part of the equation. This law is an example of the first, Simpson Bowles' approach was the second. The left is skeptical of the first but weary of the second, not because they don't believe that it will increase revenues but because they believe it will disproportionately effect lower income taxpayers.
Let's put this in perspective. Simpson Bowles identified nearly 18 Trillion worth of tax breaks to eliminate. Current Bill has around 3.5 T. And that's not accounting for the breaks that they actually expand in the bill: increased Child Tax Credit, expansion of section 179, accelerated recovery period for 1250 property, ending the limitation on executive pay deduction, etc. The net effect is that there's very little in the way of "expanding the base" in this law, as Simpson and Bowles say in their op-ed they took the "goodies" but refrained from making any of the hard choices. So the question isn't really why the Democrats are opposed to this bill, it seems obvious. The question is why would the Republicans have supported Simpson Bowles' proposal when it would have increased the tax rate (effective tax rate that is) on a lot of people and businesses? The answer is they didn't. But that was part of the "grand bargain" if they were going to get the Democrats to seriously consider entitlements reform. Neither jumped though and instead they came up with automatic across the board cuts (which this law will trigger). I'm sure they'll take up entitlements reform soon (a real tough sell) but don't be confused when the Democrats oppose that as well because you can be sure defense spending cuts won't be a part of it and those cuts also won't be anywhere near the bipartisan proposals brought forth 7 years ago.

My only point was that the lowering of tax rates was championed by both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin, when democrats have been clamoring constantly for raising rates as the only solution. The unfortunate political reality is that demagogues abound to invoke class warfare whenever any changes are made to tax laws, and that limits the extent to which deductions can be eliminated.

I supported the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin approach. We did it in 1986, with Reagan combining forces with Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt, and we had a decade and a half of growth. Europe taxes that way, even more so than we do, with a consumption tax too, which is another idea I support.

I expect that this law will reduce revenues for a year or two, but I do expect that increased growth will make it ultimately revenue neutral or positive. It will be hard to pull the data out of the noise, but that is the result that I expect.

We have been losing tax revenues to high rates, compared to the rest of the world, particularly on the corporate side. And the unfortunate knock-on effect as that we lose middle class jobs in the proposition. I do think this bill will help the economy. Maybe not in time for the 2018 midterms, but ultimately yes.

Lowering rates is only half the equation and Obama and other Democrats were open to corporate tax reform on a revenue neutral basis. They believe in a progressive individual tax plan to be sure.

"demagogues abound to invoke class warfare whenever any changes are made to tax laws, and that limits the extent to which deductions can be eliminated." - Seriously? Lobbyists and special interests limit what deductions can be eliminated. You say you support Simpson Bowles, you should read more about their proposals for expanding the EIC and establishing credits for charitable deductions and mortgage interest for lower & middle income taxpayers. Lowering rates and eliminating deductions WILL adversely effect these groups more and in any bill typically steps are taken to mitigate. In the current law they increased the standard deduction.

Is it class warfare that keeps sweetheart deals for oil & gas and real estate developers? Sure private jets are used in business but probably so are hookers, the question is whether they're "ordinary and necessary" business expenses, otherwise should taxpayers be subsidizing their use? The private jet manufacturing industry lobbying groups say they are and therefore so does congress. I'm guessing the ladies of the night don't spend as much in lobbying efforts. And God forbid you're in the service industry. The current tax code is strife with chosen winners and losers and you're going to say "class warfare' is the reason. That's funny.

I hope I've helped clear up some of your confusion

Neither side of the aisle in congress are willing to give up the "special" tax breaks written into the tax code that lower the tax burden of certain groups. This power (the ability to pick winners and losers) is what drives the money machine that is Washington DC. You think that any of them, both sides, are willing to give up that ability?? Not a chance.

What we have now are both sides pretending to act in the best interests of John Q. Public while quietly, out of sight, cutting deals that keep the lobby money spigot open and flowing.

Hopefully, this legislation is just step one to actually revising the tax code, but I'm not holding my breath that congress will ever do anything that takes power out of their hands......

No doubt. Lobbyists aren't dumb, they hedge their bets and work both sides. I too will not be holding my breath.

I think there some good, some bad and some ugly in this law but I do wish they had closed some loopholes on the corporate/business side to offset some of the rate cuts. I'm an accountant, not an economist but I worry that they're giving too much away. That there will be waste. I'm aware of several very successful businesses that this law won't effect their behavior one iota. They'll bank the money and say thank you. They'll pay more to their employees when the labor market demands it, they'll expand when customer demand demands it and they'll buy equipment as they need it because they were expensing most everything as it was. Of course these are domestic, small to midsized companies. All signs point to the economy being string, wages are bound to be making better gains soon I'd think. Now's the time to be addressing our deficit issues. Sure we needed to lower corporate tax rates but we didn't need to give away the farm.

Oh well, we'll see. Merry Christmas everyone.

(12-22-2017 12:24 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 11:51 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 11:22 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Lowering rates is only half the equation and Obama and other Democrats were open to corporate tax reform on a revenue neutral basis. They believe in a progressive individual tax plan to be sure.
"demagogues abound to invoke class warfare whenever any changes are made to tax laws, and that limits the extent to which deductions can be eliminated." - Seriously? Lobbyists and special interests limit what deductions can be eliminated. You say you support Simpson Bowles, you should read more about their proposals for expanding the EIC and establishing credits for charitable deductions and mortgage interest for lower & middle income taxpayers. Lowering rates and eliminating deductions WILL adversely effect these groups more and in any bill typically steps are taken to mitigate. In the current law they increased the standard deduction.
Is it class warfare that keeps sweetheart deals for oil & gas and real estate developers? Sure private jets are used in business but probably so are hookers, the question is whether they're "ordinary and necessary" business expenses, otherwise should taxpayers be subsidizing their use? The private jet manufacturing industry lobbying groups say they are and therefore so does congress. I'm guessing the ladies of the night don't spend as much in lobbying efforts. And God forbid you're in the service industry. The current tax code is strife with chosen winners and losers and you're going to say "class warfare' is the reason. That's funny.
I hope I've helped clear up some of your confusion

Neither side of the aisle in congress are willing to give up the "special" tax breaks written into the tax code that lower the tax burden of certain groups. This power (the ability to pick winners and losers) is what drives the money machine that is Washington DC. You think that any of them, both sides, are willing to give up that ability?? Not a chance.
What we have now are both sides pretending to act in the best interests of John Q. Public while quietly, out of sight, cutting deals that keep the lobby money spigot open and flowing.
Hopefully, this legislation is just step one to actually revising the tax code, but I'm not holding my breath that congress will ever do anything that takes power out of their hands......

No doubt. Lobbyists aren't dumb, they hedge their bets and work both sides. I too will not be holding my breath.
I think there some good, some bad and some ugly in this law but I do wish they had closed some loopholes on the corporate/business side to offset some of the rate cuts. I'm an accountant, not an economist but I worry that they're giving too much away. That there will be waste. I'm aware of several very successful businesses that this law won't effect their behavior one iota. They'll bank the money and say thank you. They'll pay more to their employees when the labor market demands it, they'll expand when customer demand demands it and they'll buy equipment as they need it because they were expensing most everything as it was. Of course these are domestic, small to midsized companies. All signs point to the economy being string, wages are bound to be making better gains soon I'd think. Now's the time to be addressing our deficit issues. Sure we needed to lower corporate tax rates but we didn't need to give away the farm.
Oh well, we'll see. Merry Christmas everyone.

No, you haven't cleared up any "confusion," which was really just a rhetorical comment of mine.

There lawson't affect small businesses directly. Who it will affect is multinationals. My barber can't move his shop to Poland, but the factory down the street can. That's who will be affected. And if that factory stays here, and particularly if it expands here, that will generate more demand for that barber and other small businesses. That is one example of the principle behind the Keynesian multiplier.

The problem with a "revenue neutral" reform of the corporate tax system is this--when the problem is that higher corporate tax rates are driving businesses and industries offshore, there is no "revenue neutral" solution. So you either accept jobs moving away as okay, or you go with a short term reduction in revenues in hopes of making it up through growth. I would be interested in knowing what "loopholes" you see for corporate taxes. Most corporate "deductions" are simply ordinary and necessary costs of doing business. If you want to tax gross revenues, fine, let's have a consumption tax, fine, go for it, I'm all for that.

I would like to have seen the rates go even lower, particularly for individuals. The difference between 37% and 39% is not that great, particularly when 20% or lower is available in other jurisdictions. I would get rid of almost all itemized deductions, like Europe. And I would do a consumption tax to make up lost revenues.

This law could be the first step toward that kind of system. Kind of like Obamacare could be the first step toward single-payer. We shall see.

Bottom line: Getting the corporate tax rate reduced to worldwide competitive levels is worth it. Not a huge fan of the rest of the bill. I would have dropped the individual rates more and gotten rid of more itemized deductions (like maybe all of them). And I would have added a consumption tax. But one thing at a time is good enough, and that was a biggie.

(12-22-2017 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line: Getting the corporate tax rate reduced to worldwide competitive levels is worth it. Not a huge fan of the rest of the bill. I would have dropped the individual rates more and gotten rid of more itemized deductions (like maybe all of them). And I would have added a consumption tax. But one thing at a time is good enough, and that was a biggie.

I totally agree. The GOP missed a great opportunity to forge a new tax paradigm that included some type of consumption component, but Ill take what I can get.

(12-22-2017 08:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 12:07 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 09:33 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/fifth-th...ssage.html

Two large companies paying bonuses and raising wages as a result of the tax bill passage.
Big mean corporations.

Yea but see that don't help those who don't work and that's who we need to help, screw the working person.

More disposable income means more spending. More spending means more jobs for those without them.

Yea but why work when someone will give you money for nothing.