Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 26, 2017, 09:21:36 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
102430 Posts in 2379 Topics by 1089 Members
Latest Member: Sarge
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Tax Policy
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] Print
Author Topic: Tax Policy  (Read 127183 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #650 on: March 27, 2017, 09:52:36 AM »

http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2450&context=law_and_economics

Conclusions
Implementing a tax system base
d on the Brady plan will present a substantial
challenge. Many implementation problems a
rise because nothing like this has
ever been tried by a developed country, not to speak of in a country the size of the
United States. It is likely that over time, solu
tions to most issues will be found.
Given the substantial number of issues, however, it is naïve to think that the plan
can be passed into law quickly.
Some issues, such as correcting the treatment of land and inventory are
straightforward. Others
, such a
s the elimination of the regimes for pass
-through
taxation and rules for major corporate transactions, are conceptually
straightforward but will be involve more substantial changes to current law. And
others will be difficult. Among the most important and difficult issues are the
following:

Deferral and the collection of the capital income tax on individuals
.

The legality of border adjustments
 and possible design changes to
improve the odds of compliance with the GATT
.

The treatment of financial institutions
.

The treatment of businesses that consistently generate tax losses while
making economic profits.

Distinguishing between real and financial flows
, and making a consistent
choice to have an R
-based system (or an R+F system).

Transition
.
These i
ssues do not have straightforward solutions and will need careful analysis
as the legislative process moves forward.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2017, 11:59:52 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #651 on: March 27, 2017, 10:02:14 AM »

I believe Crafty expressed an interest in this.  I don't happen to like it for a number of reasons.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html?mtrref=gregmankiw.blogspot.com&gwh=5B262B7F86320D4D9C013D0E904A212A&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion
« Last Edit: March 27, 2017, 12:02:03 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40035


« Reply #652 on: March 27, 2017, 12:02:33 PM »

What don't you like?

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #653 on: March 27, 2017, 05:21:56 PM »

Tax carbon ($40?) per ton.  Pay back to all, $500 per capita per year at the start.

What don't you like?

1.  I don't trust it would be implemented as proposed.  For sure we will pay in more; I don't believe for a minute we would see most or all of it back.

2. If they instead promised to use the revenues to reduce the burden of other taxes, income taxes for example, I don't believe those rates will go down or stay down either.  New taxes lead to new spending.

3. The purpose is to reduce emissions.  If it succeeds, it is a declining and unreliable source of revenue.  Yet the proposal says it will increase over time.

4. I'm not persuaded that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, or that our federal government can accurately or honestly measure and assess the 'cost'.  Carbon dioxide is a trace element in the atmosphere, less than one part per thousand, and yet is an essential building block of life.  I would be far more concerned if CO2 levels were declining.

5) The revenue stream creates its own moral hazard.  People will want more and more.  The government will want more and more, from what it wants less of.

6) In compromise, I propose we tax only the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere that did not originate in the atmosphere.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2017, 10:39:14 PM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14673


« Reply #654 on: March 27, 2017, 05:35:31 PM »

Taxes are like government programs. Once in place, they only grow.

Tax carbon ($40?) per ton.  Pay back to all, $500 per capita per year at the start.

What don't you like?

1.  I don't trust it would be implemented as proposed.  For sure we will pay in more; I don't believe for a minute we would see most or all of it back.

2. If they instead promised to use the revenues to reduce the burden of other taxes, income taxes for example, I don't believe those rates will go down or stay down either.  New taxes lead to new spending.

3. The purpose is to reduce emissions.  If it succeeds, it is a declining and unreliable source of revenue.  Yet the proposal says it will increase over time.

4. I'm not persuaded that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, or that our federal government can accurately or honestly measure and assess the 'cost'.  Carbon dioxide is a trace element in the atmosphere, lees than one part per thousand, and yet is an essential building block of life.  I would be far more concerned if CO2 levels were declining.

5) The revenue stream creates its own moral hazard.  People will want more and more.  The government will want more and more, from what it wants less of.

6) In compromise, I propose we tax only the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere that did not originate in the atmosphere.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 760


« Reply #655 on: March 27, 2017, 09:30:05 PM »

I'm with GM and Doug on this.

In fact... to me (speaking for myself), I'm fine if there are absolutely no taxes. It's been done before.
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40035


« Reply #656 on: March 27, 2017, 11:26:44 PM »

As you guys probably remember, my proposal was for this sort of tax REPLACING other taxes; that said I find the politics of this proposal intriguing , , ,
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #657 on: March 28, 2017, 08:45:50 AM »

As you guys probably remember, my proposal was for this sort of tax REPLACING other taxes; that said I find the politics of this proposal intriguing , , ,

It is intriguing in the theoretical sense, to tax pollution for its social cost instead of regulating it.  A number of things don't line up on that for this IMHO.  It's not pollution.  We don't know the cost.  If we tax it enough to make it go away, which is the goal, it doesn't make a solid revenue source to pay for defense, healthcare etc. to replace other taxes.  At some price, we could switch to nuclear grid power for example, which is carbon free, and the budget crashes.

Moving from the theoretical to the political, it doesn't replace the federal income tax unless we repeal the 16th amendment.    To repeal the 16th and move to any or every kind of consumption tax as this would be passed along to the consumer, we would need 288 votes in the House, 67 votes in the Senate and ratification in 38 states.

As GM points out, other taxes won't go away just because we have more sources of revenue.   The politics for taxing income (punitively) remains the same, no matter how much other money we can find.

MHO.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 760


« Reply #658 on: March 28, 2017, 12:05:33 PM »

As you guys probably remember, my proposal was for this sort of tax REPLACING other taxes; that said I find the politics of this proposal intriguing , , ,

If it helps in a race to zero, I'm all for it.

Unfortunately, the point that had been brought here by others, is that the government has a terrible track record on relinquishing power or money.

Doug makes a great point on the budget. I have to think that perhaps we're spending far too much anyways.

I can say, that living here, going from 100K a year to 10,000 pesos a month, I live a higher quality of life than I did there in many ways. As soon as I finish law school, some lawyers in el DF, clear a million USD a year.

The problem isn't just the budget,,, it's the price of supporting people who (you rightly elude to on another thread), will not be productive because they make more not to be in terms of welfare.

We have to find a way to quit supporting people who simply will not support themselves. It isn't heartless, it's smart.

When that happens, a high quality of life will be less expensive, and there will be fewer people breeding for cash, because they won't be being rewarded for it.

Bring back the family model, stop encouraging divorce... women receive 90% of the welfare. That has to stop. It's destroying everything and everyone... even if it's through destroying society itself.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 12:10:40 PM by DDF » Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #659 on: March 28, 2017, 02:22:04 PM »

The failure of Obamacare repeal makes tax reform harder.  24 Obamacare taxes were not repealed and the coalition is badly damaged.  The bill being floated around is flawed in many ways and no one has an answer that would both succeed if passed and pass.

The blue state penalty (lose deductibility for state and local taxes, property taxes) won't pass.  The rates don't drop that far.  The 'border tax' isn't going to be understood even if it was a good idea.  The CBO won't score it accurately or dynamically.  The talking points against it will be generated by Congress's own budget office.  Guess what, tax rate cuts will benefit the people first and most who pay the highest rates.  Get over it, but they won't.  It will feed the same narrative as kicking low income people off of healthcare, with no conservative messaging to answer it.

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin wants this done by August recess.  

Even if it eventually is watered down enough to pass, it will be too late in the year to make it retroactive to the first.  They can't measure what part of your income is before and after passage so the effective date has to be delayed to 2018, locking is a slowdown for this year - if it hasn't started already.

Investors and markets hate uncertainty, and uncertainty is now the law of the land.  The effect of both delayed tax rate cuts and uncertainty is to freeze decision making and delay and destroy valuable economic activity.

What will be the consequences of that?  Sustained (Obama plowhorse) growth?  Doubtful.  Growth you might expect from tax reform without tax reform?  Not a chance.  A stall or pause that feeds on itself and leads to a correction, recession or worse?  All possible.  

What happens if/when it all fails, negotiations break down on both healthcare and tax reform?  Add to that other potential problems brewing here and around the world?  I don't want to know.

Some of us wrote here in the 2012 election cycle that that was the last chance to get it right, and we didn't.  I didn't think we were writing hyperbole nor overstating the dangers.  What if we were right?

Meanwhile Washington marches on with a Crisis? What Crisis? attitude.  Ho hum, maybe we should try some tax reform over the summer, start with a completely unpassable, incomprehensible bill with no plan to sell it after screwing up healthcare and letting popularity levels of the President and Congress to drop to the thirties and the teens respectively.  

What could possibly go wrong?
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 02:34:32 PM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #660 on: March 28, 2017, 04:39:22 PM »

I posted this on the energy politics thread on Feb 13.  CD thought he could stomach it if other taxes were reduced to counter act it.  (not unreasonable IF libs were EVER reasonable - they never are or at least in the last 25 yrs)

That said isn't the fact that Robert Reich thinks the Baker et al plan is a good idea ALONE enough reason to be AGAINST it?

http://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-carbon-tax-would-give-each-family-2000-year-555065

Does anyone think a chump change bribe to people to get them to buy into what would be one of the largest tax hikes in human kind is good idea except for big Government  libs?
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 04:43:36 PM by ccp » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #661 on: April 02, 2017, 06:31:54 PM »

Yeah he was saying this on his show.  Of course we all know cutting business taxes will allow employers to increase wages:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446346/gop-congress-must-do-business-tax-cuts-now
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #662 on: April 04, 2017, 08:08:01 AM »

We know we are in trouble when even the Republican pols are for taxes.  Rush had great discussion of why it is so hard to do anything about taxes.  It is because they are the main source of politicians power.  They ain't about to give it up ever.  Tax break will nearly always be combined with another way to tax elsewhere:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/big-nanny-republicans-west-virginia-proposes-gop-backed-soda-tax
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 760


« Reply #663 on: April 04, 2017, 08:44:08 AM »

We know we are in trouble when even the Republican pols are for taxes.  Rush had great discussion of why it is so hard to do anything about taxes.  It is because they are the main source of politicians power.  They ain't about to give it up ever.  Tax break will nearly always be combined with another way to tax elsewhere:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/big-nanny-republicans-west-virginia-proposes-gop-backed-soda-tax

AMEN.
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #664 on: April 04, 2017, 09:32:17 AM »

'Taxes are the main source of politicians power'

That's right.  Even the right talks about "Revenue Neutral" tax cutting.  But what is revenue neutral about taxation?  It is the shifting of trillions of dollars a year of revenues to people who didn't earn it.  Some of it is spent for good public uses like a river crossing or national defense and most of it is not.

Trump put out a budget that had serious cuts in it.  Why not couple that with a tax rate cut that would grow the economy and sell it as a package?

The deficit is also a source of their power.  Because of the deficit and the addiction to spending, tax revenues can never be cut or cut much.

In politics, they talk about a wedge issue where as you push on it, it opens wider.  In taxes, maybe they should reduce all rates by 1% or even 0.1%, just to establish the consensus that we know they are too high and we know how to lower them.

And cut all spending too by at least as much!
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #665 on: April 06, 2017, 09:10:23 AM »

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/yes-change-may-be-coming-to-americas-tax-code-and-its-going-too-cost-you-more
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #666 on: April 06, 2017, 09:44:48 AM »


That's right.  And why are we constantly trying to divide conservatives?

From the article:
"A carbon tax, a VAT, a BAT, and raising taxes on investors are all bad ideas. It would be one thing if Washington were planning to abolish the income tax or the corporate tax altogether. But to add another revenue stream in return for a promise of some other tax cuts, which invariably make the code even more progressive … conservatives should not waste their time on this issue."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

" it doesn't replace the federal income tax unless we repeal the 16th amendment"
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1791.msg102751#msg102751

"Taxes are like government programs. Once in place, they only grow."  (G M)
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1791.msg102735#msg102735
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Republicans (conservatives?) just won the House, Senate and White House.  They should have cut tax rates, spending and the deficit on the first day, retroactive to the first of the year - by whatever amount that could be agreed on.

All these new ideas are so clever and complicated that they will never be understood and passed in time to do any good.  By the time they could get passed, Democrats will just raise them back up anyway.

R's act like Democrats, thinking this is some kind of permanent political majority - after winning by -2.5 million votes.

How about governing with some sense of urgency, like we believe what we said - that the left's policies, taxes and programs are destroying the country.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2017, 09:47:09 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #667 on: April 06, 2017, 10:18:46 AM »

Doug writes:

"Republicans (conservatives?) just won the House, Senate and White House.  They should have cut tax rates, spending and the deficit on the first day, retroactive to the first of the year - by whatever amount that could be agreed on.

All these new ideas are so clever and complicated that they will never be understood and passed in time to do any good.  By the time they could get passed, Democrats will just raise them back up anyway.

R's act like Democrats, thinking this is some kind of permanent political majority - after winning by -2.5 million votes.

How about governing with some sense of urgency, like we believe what we said - that the left's policies, taxes and programs are destroying the country."

Yup.  They refuse to give up their power which is to spend our money and also afraid of being labelled the usual Democrat mantra 'tax cutters for the rich"
(even though 47 % pay NO federal income tax so who the hell are they to complain? and the top 20% pay the majority of all taxes)

The only 'valid' reason for *caution* is the Deficit but we know that is not the main reason they will not cut taxes.

Whatever we do get it will be watered down ,  not for those who really need it, those who pay nothing continue to do so, and in the end it will likely be shell game.
 cry
« Last Edit: April 06, 2017, 10:23:13 AM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40035


« Reply #668 on: April 16, 2017, 08:51:42 PM »

The Border-Adjustment Sleight of Hand
The double levy on U.S. companies’ overseas profits is the actual ‘Made in America tax.’
Photo: Phil Foster
By Veronique de Rugy and
Daniel J. Mitchell
April 16, 2017 2:10 p.m. ET
27 COMMENTS

With Republicans in control of Capitol Hill and the White House, this should be an opportune time for major tax cuts to boost American growth and competitiveness. But much of the reform energy is being dissipated in a counterproductive fight over the “border adjustment” tax proposed by House Republicans.

The plan calls for dropping the top corporate tax rate to 20% from 35%, while exempting exports and taxing imports. House Republicans have latched onto the border-adjustment tax for a very practical and understandable reason. It supposedly would generate more than $1 trillion of tax revenue over 10 years. That money could finance other parts of their agenda to generate growth, such as replacing today’s onerous depreciation rules with immediate expensing.

Although their intentions are reasonable, this strategy is questionable. Start with the political blunder: Republican tax plans normally receive overwhelming support from the business community. But the border-adjustment tax has created deep divisions. Proponents claim border adjustability is not protectionist because it would automatically push up the value of the dollar, neutralizing the effect on trade. Importers don’t have much faith in this theory and oppose the GOP plan.

Their concerns are legitimate. No country has ever imposed a border-adjusted corporate-income tax, so this is uncharted territory. But many countries have value-added taxes, or VATs, that are border-adjustable, and their experience might serve as a reasonable proxy. A review of the empirical literature shows that currencies adjust when a VAT is applied, but they do so neither entirely nor quickly. Factors such as poor design or improper administration can get in the way.

If the currency adjustment were perfect, there should be no effect on trade volume. But research has shown that VATs are associated with both lower exports and imports. A 2005 academic study examined 136 nations and concluded: “Countries using VATs have one-third fewer exports than do countries not using VATs, and 10 percent greater VAT revenue is associated with two percent fewer exports.”

Proponents of the border-adjustment tax also are using a dodgy sales pitch, saying that their plan will get rid of a “Made in America Tax.” The claim is that VATs give foreign companies an advantage. Say a German company exports a product to the U.S. It doesn’t pay the American corporate income tax, and it receives a rebate on its German VAT payments. But an American company exporting to Germany has to pay both—it’s subject to the U.S. corporate income tax and then pays the German VAT on the product when it is sold.

Sounds horribly unfair, right? Don’t be fooled. Like magicians, those making this argument are distracting the unwary, hoping that nobody will notice the trick.

Here’s the real story: What matters from a competitive perspective is whether the playing field is level—and it is. When the German company sells to customers in the U.S., it is subject to the German corporate income tax. The competing American firm selling domestically pays the U.S. corporate income tax. Neither is hit with a VAT. In other words, a level playing field.

What if an American company sells to a customer in Germany? The U.S. government imposes the corporate income tax and the German government imposes a VAT. But guess what? The German competitor selling domestically is hit by the German corporate income tax and the German VAT. That’s another level playing field. This explains why economists, on the right and left, repeatedly have debunked the idea that countries use VATs to boost their exports.

Companies can be disadvantaged, though, if their country’s tax regime is onerous. One big plus for Americans is that Washington does not impose a VAT, which would enable government to grow. This is a major reason that the U.S. economy is more vibrant than Europe’s. In Germany, the VAT raises so much tax revenue that the government consumes 44% of gross domestic product—compared with 38% in America.

On the other hand, America’s top corporate income tax of 35% is the highest in the developed world. If state corporate income taxes are added, the figure hits nearly 40%, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That compares very unfavorably with other nations. Europe’s average top corporate rate is less than 19%, and the global average is less than 23%, according to the Tax Foundation. The damage is compounded because the U.S. has a “world-wide” tax system, putting an extra levy on income that American companies earn overseas. That’s the real “Made in America Tax,” and it’s our own fault.

The solution is to reduce the corporate rate and adopt a territorial tax system, taxing only profits earned at home, as almost all other Western countries do. The good news is that the House plan does both these things. The bad news is that the proposal is weighed down by the border-adjustment tax. Republicans should drop this controversial provision and focus on the policies that will boost growth.

To get the maximum bang for the buck, the final package should include restraints on spending—which doesn’t even mean an absolute budget cut. If Congress simply limits the growth of outlays to about 2% a year, that would create enough fiscal space to balance the budget over 10 years and adopt a $3 trillion tax cut. If Republicans want a win-win, dropping the border-adjustment tax is the way to get one.

Ms. de Rugy is a senior fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. Mr. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #669 on: April 25, 2017, 09:07:35 AM »


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/upshot/tax-code-business.html
How Best to Tax Business
APRIL 21, 2017
Economic View
By N. GREGORY MANKIW
The details of the tax code may not make your heart sing, but they are enormously important and, at long last, they may be changing. In fact, the next 12 months are shaping up to be a critically important time.

Despite an uneven start, tax reform is on the agenda in Congress. And the ideas being considered, especially regarding business taxation, are not mere tweaks to our ossified system. They would profoundly alter how the government raises money and upend the incentives for private decision makers. This is fascinating to tax policy nerds like me. But it is important for everyone to understand.

The motivating force behind business tax reform is that the statutory corporate tax rate in the United States is one of the highest in the world. The high rate encourages all kinds of perverse behavior, such as leaving money parked in overseas subsidiaries and inverting corporate structures to take advantage of lower rates abroad.

The current corporate tax finds no fan in Kevin A. Hassett, the economist recently nominated by President Trump to lead the Council of Economic Advisers. Some of Mr. Hassett’s research suggests that our high corporate taxes may be so distortional that a cut in the rate might increase tax revenue.


In another paper, Mr. Hassett finds that corporate taxes depress wages for manufacturing workers. In a world where capital is mobile and labor is not, capital escapes from high-tax nations, leaving workers behind to bear the burden of lower productivity and reduced incomes.

The debate in Congress, however, has gone beyond a simple discussion of tax rates. The Better Way plan, championed by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Representative Kevin Brady, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, promises fundamental changes in the nature of business taxation, most of which would, in my view, be steps in the right direction. There are four key issues.

WORLDWIDE VS. TERRITORIAL Most nations aim to impose taxes on economic activity that takes place within their borders. Such a system is called territorial. By contrast, the United States has a worldwide corporate tax. If a company based in the United States produces a product abroad and then sells it abroad, our Treasury takes a cut of the profits when they are brought back home.

The House tax bill would move our system toward international norms. American companies would be able to compete abroad on a level playing field with companies based in other nations. The tax incentive for corporate inversions would be eliminated.

INCOME VS. CONSUMPTION Many economists have argued that taxes should be levied based on consumption rather than income. Consumption taxes would do less to discourage saving and investment and would thus be more favorable to economic growth. In addition, consumption taxes are arguably fairer: They tax the standard of living people enjoy rather than the value of what they produce.

The House plan moves toward a consumption tax by allowing businesses to deduct their investment spending immediately, rather than depreciating it slowly over time. By exempting the income that businesses reinvest, the government would essentially be taxing consumed profits.


ORIGIN-BASED VS. DESTINATION-BASED TAXATION The corporate tax system is now origin-based. It levies taxes on the profit from goods produced in the United States, regardless of where they end up. An alternative, proposed in the House bill, would be to tax all goods consumed in the United States, regardless of where they are made. This destination-based approach would tax imports and exempt exports, which is sometimes called a border adjustment. In this way, the business tax would resemble many of the value-added taxes used in Europe.

Some advocates have argued that the switch to destination-based taxes would make American goods more competitive and reduce our trade deficits. Some critics have suggested that it would unduly hurt firms that rely on imports and their customers. Both arguments are probably wrong.

To be sure, the immediate impact of the change would be to discourage imports and encourage exports. But that in turn would mean Americans would supply fewer dollars in foreign-exchange markets, and foreigners would demand more dollars. As a result, the dollar would appreciate, making foreign goods cheaper for Americans, and American goods more expensive for foreigners. The movement in the exchange rate would offset the initial impact on imports and exports.

The main advantage of destination-based taxation is that it is easier to determine where a good is consumed than where it is produced. In a world where multinationals produce goods using parts from around the world, origin-based taxes invite firms to game the system with transfer pricing schemes. Destination-based taxation is less easily gamed.

DEBT VS. EQUITY Now, firms can deduct interest payments to bondholders, but they cannot deduct dividend payments to equity holders. This treatment encourages firms to rely on debt rather than equity, making them more financially fragile than they would otherwise be.

The House plan fixes this asymmetric treatment of debt and equity by no longer allowing firms to deduct interest payments. A business’s taxes would be based on its cash flow: revenue minus wage payments and investment spending. How this cash flow is then paid out to equity and debt holders would be irrelevant.


While I like the policy choices proposed by the House bill, not all economists agree. Some view the bill as too radical, risking too many unintended consequences. Others worry that transitioning from the old system to a new one is not worth the cost, even if the new one is better.

Without a doubt, the coming debate will involve immense politicking. Any large tax change creates winners and losers, and the losers are sure to make their voices heard. But what matters most is whether the changes are better for the United States over all, not for special-interest groups. The more voters understand, the better off we all will be.

N. Gregory Mankiw is a professor of economics at Harvard.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #670 on: April 27, 2017, 10:00:12 AM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/politics/trump-tax-cut-plan.html
"Significantly Aiding Wealthy"
[Can't seem to get coverage of this without liberal spin.  Good example of why they say you don't have to turn to the opinion page to get the NYT opinion - they conveniently put it on the front page in every story.]

Have we found some way of cutting the tax burden on the half of the country that doesn't pay a federal income tax?  Have we found some way of improving the demand for and value of labor without easing the burden of businesses and employers?

As usual, I don't understand the strategy.  Cut corporate rates from 35% federal to 15%.  Great, except it won't happen. 

Also, I can barely find it - even searching WhiteHouse.gov.  Here is a Jpeg:


Cutting the top rate from 39.6 back to 35% (plus up to 10% state tax) is a giveaway to the rich?

Anyway, the current one page document merely brings the issue forward and is starting point for negotiations.

"Throughout the month of May the Trump Administration will be holding listening sessions with stakeholders..."

At the rate this is going, I don't see how it ever gets done.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40035


« Reply #671 on: April 28, 2017, 12:23:39 AM »

"Don't tax you. Don't tax me.  Tax that fellow behind the tree." 

I forget who said this decades ago, but he was the head of the Ways and Means Committee or something like that.  Dirk Everetson (sp?)?

FWIW gents, do you really think a major overhaul of the tax code is not going to be a big rip roaring fight taking time?

 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #672 on: April 28, 2017, 03:50:26 AM »

http://www.thedailyreview.com/news/2015-12-09/Letters_to_the_Editor/Dont_tax_me.html

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #673 on: April 28, 2017, 06:42:11 AM »

"Don't tax you. Don't tax me.  Tax that fellow behind the tree." 

The Lefts modern version is

"tax the rich"

My version is

"they should tax Democrats and all liberals only"

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #674 on: April 28, 2017, 09:03:23 AM »

"they should tax Democrats and all liberals only"

ccp:  You aren't going to like the 'blue state penalty'.  It doesn't follow your motto above. 
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1791.msg101397#msg101397

Of the big 3 deductions, mortgage interest, charitable giving and state/local taxes, only the first two survived the first draft.

The problem with this has to do with tyranny of the majority and consent of the governed.  The penalty doubly applies to people who live in the blue states but oppose the big government, blue state model.

Take my state for example, please, take it.  Hillary won MN by only 1.5%, down 10 points from Obama's 11.5% win in 2008.  Meanwhile, Republicans won the State House and Senate, while a lame duck sits in the governor's mansion with pen and phone - no new tax cuts.

In one sense, I agree with the proposal.  High income tax states should not get a break on federal taxes just because they tax themselves to death at the state level.  We still need a military, and to fund research on spotted frogs, or whatever the feds do with the $4 trillion we give them.

On the other hand, property taxes can be a very unfair form of taxation.  A homestead property doesn't have a stream of income or revenue to tax or pay a tax from.  The homeowner does, but that is already double taxed progressively on the income side.

Imagine a retired person or couple on a fixed income.  Property taxes go up and up over time; income does not.  The longer you live the more you are unable to live in the house you bought and paid for over your adult lifetimes.  We encourage home ownership for a reason, then we force people out with the other arm of the same big government - right at the point of their life where it is hardest to move.  Why would we value borrowing to buy a house over a person's 'contributions to their local schools and communities.  It makes no sense.

Therefore, Doug's compromise.  Remove the state income tax deduction, but retain the property tax deduction.

While appearing to care and be more fair and inclusive, this will capture vast majority of the revenue IF they really do double the standard deduction.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7020


« Reply #675 on: April 28, 2017, 10:05:46 AM »

*****"they should tax Democrats and all liberals only"

ccp:  You aren't going to like the 'blue state penalty'.  It doesn't follow your motto above. 
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1791.msg101397#msg101397****

yes , removing the state income tax deduction will of course hurt me since I live in NJ, but I was referring to all people who vote Democrats not blue states. 

 cheesy

That said I have learned to never expect  to be able keep more of the money I earned fair and honestly.
 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40035


« Reply #676 on: April 28, 2017, 10:22:16 AM »

" Dirk Everetson (sp?)?"

Everet Dirkson?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #677 on: April 28, 2017, 10:48:16 AM »

" Dirk Everetson (sp?)?"
Everet Dirkson?

Even backwards, that is a good memory!

“Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.” This quote is attributed to the late Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois back in the ‘60s when tax issues were the topic in the U.S. Senate.
http://www.thedailyreview.com/news/2015-12-09/Letters_to_the_Editor/Dont_tax_me.html
-------------------------------

John Kasich from ccp's post:
"I don't think there's any way they can say 'okay we're gonna cut all these taxes and it's going to pay for itself,'" Kasich, told students at the Ivy League school's Institute of Politics

1. Must note that he is out on big salary talking to Ivy Leaguers, not delivering milk(?) like his Dad.  There goes the champion of the little guy - telling the big guys what they want to hear - for big money!

2.  Any chance he was alive or aware during the 1980s?  Reagan cut the top rate from 70% down to 28% and Revenues to the Treasury doubled over the decade. 

Revenues 1980:  $517,100,000,000    The last year before Reagan took office.
Revenues 1990   1,032,000,000,000   The first full year after Reagan left office, his tax policies still in place.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/45010-breakout-appendixh.pdf

Rising tide lifts all boats.

3.  Trump with all his warts won more votes and a higher percentage of the vote in the general election in Ohio than Kasich won in the primary with all his hometown advantage, FWIW.

Like McCain opposing tax cuts in 2000, the 'moderates' love to oppose Republican policy and avoid opposing Democrats.  'How can I get NYT and the Ivy Leaguers to like me?'  Note that after the nomination, the msm was nowhere to be seen in support of McCain or any of that ilk, and the left hated Mitt every but as much as they despise Trump.  They hated and mocked Reagan too.  He defeated them with policy wins and economic results, not appeasement.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40035


« Reply #678 on: April 28, 2017, 12:21:59 PM »

Once upon a time Kasich was really good on tax and spending issues.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #679 on: May 01, 2017, 12:49:01 PM »

Besides ignoring JFK and Reagan, the left and the media, I repeat myself, keep lying about the Bush 'tax cuts'.  Under JFK, 90% rates made it easy to grow the economy and grow revenues by lowering rates, but most noteworthy was the pure, supply side rhetoric of the young, popular Democratic President.  Under Reagan, revenues doubled in a decade and deficits came from the delays to the cuts and even faster growth of spending in compromise with the Tip O'Neill House.

Under Bush, the US economy eventually imploded when it became known with certainty that the Bush tax RATE cuts were ending, when Pelosi-Reid-Obama-HRC and Biden took control of Washington and congress promising tax rate increases.  Besides the impending ending of tax rate cuts, we made all kinds of other economic policy errors, from the Fed's free money to the CRAp that required lenders to make bad loans.

Great article today (below) documenting what I have been trying to say on these pages.

Do you even know anyone who knows that revenues surged 60% in 4 years under the Bush tax cuts?  Does Chuck Todd at Meet the dePressed or John Dickerson at deFace the Nation know that? Has either ever said that?  They say 'blow up the deficit' without being able to do simple arithmetic or memory recall of basic numbers from the very recent past.  (Or do they deceive intentionally?)

Here are the facts:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/isnt_it_time_the_media_told_the_truth_about_bush_tax_cuts.html

In 2002, the top income tax rates for individuals was 38.6% on ordinary income and dividends and 21.2% on capital gains. George W. Bush got Congress to lower taxes across the board and the top bracket to 35% on ordinary income and 15% on dividends and capital gains. (Bush had inherited a recession and a collapsed stock market in 2001 and the economy had been stagnant or slowing up to these tax cuts).

Instead of the tax rate cuts costing the government money, revenues skyrocketed.

From FY 2000 to FY 2003 income tax proceeds had declined from around $1.2 Trillion to around $900 Billion in FY 2003. After the across the board cuts, income tax revenues skyrocketed over 60% to over $1.5 Trillion by FY 2007. The deficit also went down to $161 Billion by FY 2007, including both wars and Medicare Part D. Obviously, the tax rate cuts and the increasing revenue did not increase the deficit as we are repeatedly told.

The tax cuts gave the economy the boost that it needed. It is an extremely simple concept that the more money that is left in the hands of individuals and businesses, the more opportunity there is to spend, save and invest -- and all are good for the overall economy. It is also a simple concept that the more money the government confiscates, the less opportunity there is for growth.

As for jobs, in January 2001 when President Bush took office, there were 132.7 million non- farm workers. By May 2003, when Bush passed the tax cuts, employment had dropped to 130.2 million. At the end of 2007, employment had jumped to 138.4 Million. If employment was trending down before the cuts and jumped substantially after the tax cuts occurred it certainly appears that there is both a correlation and causation related to the tax rate cuts as to the significant boost to the economy.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2017, 01:58:44 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #680 on: May 02, 2017, 09:13:24 AM »

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell050217.php3

One societal sickness that we still can't eradicate: Political lies

Thomas Sowell
By Thomas Sowell
Published May 2, 2017
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell050217.php3One societal sickness that we still can't eradicate: Political lies

A classic example is the phrase "tax cuts for the rich," which is loudly proclaimed by opponents, whenever there is a proposal to reduce tax rates. The current proposal to reduce federal tax rates has revived this phrase, which was disproved by facts, as far back as the 1920s -- and by now should be called "tax lies for the gullible."

How is the claim of "tax cuts for the rich" false? Let me count the ways. More important, you can easily check out the facts for yourself with a simple visit to your local public library or, for those more computer-minded, on the Internet.

One of the key arguments of those who oppose what they call "tax cuts for the rich" is that the Reagan administration tax cuts led to huge federal government deficits, contrary to "supply side economics" which said that lower tax rates would lead to higher tax revenues.

This reduces the whole issue to a question about facts -- and the hard facts are available in many places, including a local public library or on the Internet.

The hardest of these hard facts is that the revenues collected from federal income taxes during every year of the Reagan administration were higher than the revenues collected from federal income taxes during any year of any previous administration.

How can that be? Because tax RATES and tax REVENUES are two different things. Tax rates and tax revenues can move in either the same direction or in opposite directions, depending on how the economy responds.

But why should you take my word for it that federal income tax revenues were higher than before during the Reagan administration? Check it out.

Official statistics are available in many places. The easiest way to find those statistics is to go look at a copy of the annual "Economic Report of the President." It doesn't have to be the latest Report under President Trump. It can be a Report from any administration, from the Obama administration all the way back to the administration of the elder George Bush.

Each annual "Economic Report of the President" has the history of federal revenues and expenditures, going back for decades. And that is just one of the places where you can get this data. The truth is readily available, if you want it. But, if you are satisfied with political rhetoric, so be it.

Before we turn to the question of "the rich," let's first understand the implications of higher income tax revenues after income tax rates were cut during the Reagan administration.

That should have put an end to the talk about how lower tax rates reduce government revenues and therefore tax cuts need to be "paid for" or else there will be rising deficits. There were in fact rising deficits in the 1980s, but that was due to spending that outran even the rising tax revenues.

Congress does the spending, and there is no amount of money that Congress cannot outspend.

As for "the rich," higher-income taxpayers paid more -- repeat, MORE tax revenues into the federal treasury under the lower tax rates than they had under the previous higher tax rates.

That happened not only during the Reagan administration, but also during the Coolidge administration and the Kennedy administration before Reagan, and under the G.W. Bush administration after Reagan. All these administrations cut tax rates and received higher tax revenues than before.

More than that, "the rich" not only paid higher total tax revenues after the so-called "tax cuts for the rich," they also paid a higher percentage of all tax revenues afterwards. Data on this can be found in a number of places, including documented sources listed in my monograph titled "'Trickle Down' Theory and 'Tax Cuts for the Rich.'"

As a source more congenial to some, a front-page story in the New York Times on July 9, 2006 -- during the Bush 43 administration -- reported, "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year." Expectations, of course, are in the eye of the beholder.


Thomas Sowell, a National Humanities Medal winner, is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher and author. He is currently Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #681 on: May 02, 2017, 10:03:33 AM »

Arthur Laffer also makes the case for tax policy that brings growth and he compliments Trump on choices in the plan

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/arthur-laffer-trumps-tax-plan-should-follow-the-reagan-model/article/2621763

"...the faulty logic that their tax cuts must be revenue-neutral in a static analysis. "

Static analysis is false when the whole point of the policy change is to accelerate economic growth!


"Voters want and need economic growth... and they want it now!"

Economic growth was 0% last quarter.  This is now May, another quarter shot.  In 7 months we start the next election year and economic results lag policy changes.  I just don't get the lackadaisical approach to the timing of this, as if the policy change doesn't matter.  This isn't the transition or the first 100 days anymore.  Trump should not want his Presidency's economy scored under the Obama administration's tax disincentives system.  If the new reform is so simple, write it up, sell it and pass it.  Let's go!
« Last Edit: May 14, 2017, 12:59:37 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14673


« Reply #682 on: May 02, 2017, 10:19:59 AM »

Can we find a donor for a brain, spine and testicular implants for the stupid party's leadership?


Arthur Laffer also makes the case for tax policy that brings growth and he compliments Trump on choices in the plan

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/arthur-laffer-trumps-tax-plan-should-follow-the-reagan-model/article/2621763

"...the faulty logic that their tax cuts must be revenue-neutral in a static analysis. "

Static analysis is false when the whole point of the policy change is to accelerate economic growth!


"Voters want and need economic growth... and they want it now!"

Economic growth was 0% last quarter.  This is now May, another quarter shot.  In 7 months we start the next election year and economic results lag policy changes.  I just don't get the lackadaisical approach to the timing of this, as if the policy change doesn't matter.  This isn't the transition or the first 100 days anymore.  Trump should not want his Presidency's economy scored under the Obama administration's tax disincentives system.  If the new reform is so simple, write it up, sell it and pass it.  Let's go!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #683 on: May 03, 2017, 03:12:11 PM »

"Can we find a donor for a brain, spine and testicular implants for the stupid party's leadership?"

Under 'stupid party', you will find at least 2 listings.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14673


« Reply #684 on: May 03, 2017, 04:08:17 PM »

"Can we find a donor for a brain, spine and testicular implants for the stupid party's leadership?"

Under 'stupid party', you will find at least 2 listings.

Repubs = Stupid party

Dems = Evil party

Libertarians = Crazy party
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8777


« Reply #685 on: May 15, 2017, 01:19:19 PM »

"Please feel free to post that in the Tax thread here and the Economics thread on the SC&H forum too."

 http://www.heritage.org/node/18247/print-display
The tax rate cuts of the 1920s were followed by a 61% increase revenues over 7 years.
The Kennedy tax rate cuts brought a 62% increase in revenues over 7 years.
The Reagan tax rate cuts yielded a 54% increase over 6 years (100% over 10 years).

Then when Bush or Trump propose tax rate cuts, the media demands to know how they will deal with the static revenue loss - a demonstrably false premise question.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!