Author Topic: Tax Policy  (Read 248921 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #800 on: March 14, 2018, 10:08:15 AM »
Remember when I said as soon as Christy is out of office the crats will raises taxes

I refuse to be suffocated to pay for state employee benefits / pensions . 
Even the big lib Franklin Roosevelt knew that allowing government employees to unionize was a bad idea.

What a racket unions government employees the Dem Party revolving mafia power sticking it to the rest of us.
I am moving as soon as possible.

That's what they said with Calif too, you will have to lock the exits if you want everybody to pay at those rates.

A union or collective bargaining is justified when one employer controls nearly all the employment in the town which happened once in a while in our history.  In the case of the government, the force playing the role of the evil capitalist is the taxpayer and the will of the people.  Public sector employment competes within the private market, can never by definition be the only employer, or who would fund it?  Whether it is city hall or the Pentagon, they must pay enough in salary, benefits and so on to lure good, qualified people to work there, just like every other employer has to do.  The rest is cronyism, power and corruption.  See AFSME.  Teachers unions are the biggest political money force in our state and all their money originates with the taxpayer.  They are in bed with one political party and take their politics into the classroom and demand for government goes up and up.  But we are already past the point in tax policy where we can raise rates to collect more money.  See the corporate tax rate.  The new Dem plan is to only raise it to 25%, not the 35% plus state taxes that caused 4600 companies to pack up and leave.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49762
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #801 on: March 14, 2018, 11:03:04 AM »
The public unions negotiate with elected officials who know that if they negotiate badly the union will provide campaign workers at election time.  Conflict of interest!

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17454
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #802 on: March 14, 2018, 11:06:53 AM »
Remember when I said as soon as Christy is out of office the crats will raises taxes

I refuse to be suffocated to pay for state employee benefits / pensions . 
Even the big lib Franklin Roosevelt knew that allowing government employees to unionize was a bad idea.

What a racket unions government employees the Dem Party revolving mafia power sticking it to the rest of us.
I am moving as soon as possible.


Good idea.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy, Calif lost 9000 businesses in 7 years
« Reply #803 on: March 14, 2018, 12:12:09 PM »
Calif forgot to lock the exits:
California lost 9,000 business HQs and expansions, mostly to Texas, 7-year, 378 page study says
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/morning_call/2015/11/california-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49762
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #804 on: March 14, 2018, 05:58:12 PM »
Please post in California thread as well.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
CBO underestimates: 65% of the tax cuts are paid for with higher growth
« Reply #805 on: April 15, 2018, 09:55:04 AM »
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-revenues-deficits-paying-for-themselves/

[CBO] "it goes on to say that higher rate of GDP growth will produce $1.1 trillion in new revenues. In other words, 65% of the tax cuts are paid for by extra economic growth.

Did I already say, who knew?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Notice that Germany and the OECD rely heavily on the VAT tax, value added tax, which like a sales tax is added onto everything you buy.  

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZD1GRAWsAARiqA.jpg

Why do they do that?  The VAT tax is a flat tax.  You can't manipulate things to get out of it.  So why not do that for income taxes.

The consumption tax applies only to purchases, which tend to hit lower and middle income harder because they tend to consume all their income and then some, where the rich do not.

Belgium and Germany have the highest tax burdens in the OECD and the VAT tax is the largest contributor:
http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-tax-burden-second-highest-among-rich-countries-oecd/a-43553803

The US Social Security Tax nas an income cap on it because it is supposed to be insurance, not a tax.  Liberals want to remove the cap.  Funny that on this important item they want to make it a flat tax.  Probably just as a stepping stone to making it progressive in rates and eventually just another welfare program.

Revenues from income taxes in the US were 17.8% of GDP when the top rate was 28% and 17.3% of GDP when the top rate was nearly 40% in 2017.  When the top rates were 70% and 90%, the government also only collected about 18% of GDP in tax revenue.  People adjust their earning behavior to work within the incentive and disincentive systems they face.

Why not make the tax rate 20% or less for all, maximize GDP and GDP growth, and do the safety net and redistribution programs on the spending side of the equation?

We just did that for corporations.  Why not for individuals?
« Last Edit: April 29, 2018, 08:55:39 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49762
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49762
    • View Profile
WSJ: Strassel: Trump can act alone to index capital gains
« Reply #808 on: July 13, 2018, 07:46:00 PM »
 By Kimberley A. Strassel
July 12, 2018 7:02 p.m. ET
397 COMMENTS

What if President Trump had the authority—on his own—to enact a second powerful tax reform? He does. The momentum is building for him to use it.

In the halls of Congress, the corridors of the administration, and the nerve centers of activist groups, forces are aligning behind a plan: a White House order to index capital gains for inflation. It’s a long-overdue move—one that would further unleash the economy and boost GOP election prospects. And Mr. Trump could be the president bold enough to make it finally happen.

At President Reagan’s behest, Congress in the 1980s indexed much of the federal tax code for inflation. Oddly, capital gains weren’t similarly treated. The result is that businesses and individuals pay taxes on the full nominal amount they earn on investments, even though inflation eats up a good chunk of any gain. It’s not unheard of for taxes to exceed real gains after inflation. The result is significant capital distortion, as companies sit on buildings and property or investors sit on stock—rather than selling and thereby putting both assets and gains to more productive use.

Conservatives have understood this problem for decades, yet for decades they have been held hostage to a 1992 government brief. The paper by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel offered a few faulty arguments as to why the Treasury lacked the authority to make this regulatory change. Neither President Bush questioned it, but others have.

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist —chief troop-rallier in this effort—has been circulating a 2012 paper by lawyers Chuck Cooper and Vincent Colatriano that details that 1992 opinion’s flaws. It points out that the Internal Revenue Code does not require that the “cost” of an asset be measured only as its original price—meaning there is no reason Treasury could not construe it in today’s dollars. More important, it noted that since the Supreme Court decision in Verizon Communications v. Federal Communications Commission (2002), regulators have leeway in how they define “cost.”

“Every Republican I’ve talked to says it is powerful public policy,” says Mr. Norquist. “Some had this vestigial memory of a negative memo. But once they actually read the memo, they understood there is no legal obstacle, and the support for this within the Congress, within the White House, within the Treasury, has just exploded.” Mr. Norquist notes that part of the attraction is that all Treasury has to do is issue a definitional regulation—no lengthy rulemaking required.

What’s new of late is the growing, and powerful, backing. Senate heavyweights Ted Cruz and Pat Toomey had already this year introduced a capital-gains indexing bill, and House Republican Devin Nunes tells me that he is next week introducing his own, though he believes “the administration could implement [the change] under its own authority.” House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows on Thursday sent a letter to President Trump encouraging Treasury to put the change in place by Oct. 1. Mr. Trump’s top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, wrote a column last year calling on the president to “spark a wave of prosperity” with an indexing order. Vice President Mike Pence pushed this issue in 2006 when he was still in Congress. And dozens of outside groups, from ATR to Club for Growth to the National Federation of Independent Business, are pushing to end the “inflation tax.”

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin recently told this newspaper that he’d like Congress to move on indexing, but that if it was a no-go, his department would “decide whether we want to consider this on a nonlegislative basis.” That’s notable, because Republicans can’t get 60 votes for this in the Senate. Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, led by Oregon’s Ron Wyden, have already sent a letter to Mr. Mnuchin warning against regulatory indexing, previewing that they’d oppose it as a giveaway to the “wealthy” and a hit to the deficit.

So, nothing new—though the left’s deficit argument here is flimsier than usual. Indexing is a de facto cut in the capital gains tax, and every capital gains tax cut in modern history has resulted in a rise in capital gains revenue. The move would set off an explosion of buying and selling—of which the government would get its cut. The lower tax on capital would also help asset prices grow. All of this would be excellent news for the economy, but also for those workers who were stung by the recent tax reform’s limit on state and local deductions but might now see some alternate tax relief. All in time for the midterms.

All it takes is a simple order. A President Trump who has so confidently wielded his authority to cut down regulation should have no issue wielding it to cut down an outdated, decades-old legal memo that is holding back the economy and unfairly burdening investors—small and big alike.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Strassel: Trump can act alone to index capital gains
« Reply #809 on: July 14, 2018, 07:25:16 AM »
This would be life changing for me, give the economy another needed boost, and perhaps give Trump the economic strength he needs to win the trade war, take tariffs to zero and make America great again.

It's also the right thing to do.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Tax rate cut Policy, Oops, tax revenues up 9% this year
« Reply #810 on: July 17, 2018, 08:26:02 AM »
Who knew?

Who even knows this now?  Headline News?  Not so much.  It's reported on the opinion page of a publication read only by conservatives.

The latest monthly budget report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that revenues from federal income taxes were $76 billion higher in the first half of this year, compared with the first half of 2017. That's a 9% jump, even though the lower income tax withholding schedules went into effect in February.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/income-tax-revenues-trump-tax-cuts-economic-growth/

Some of this comes from tax payments for last year's growth, when the deregulation tax was slashed. 

Imagine the size of this story if the facts were the other way around, revenues down by the size of the rate cut or more.  Front page for sure!

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17454
    • View Profile
Re: Tax rate cut Policy, Oops, tax revenues up 9% this year
« Reply #811 on: July 17, 2018, 09:19:43 AM »
Who knew?

Who even knows this now?  Headline News?  Not so much.  It's reported on the opinion page of a publication read only by conservatives.

The latest monthly budget report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that revenues from federal income taxes were $76 billion higher in the first half of this year, compared with the first half of 2017. That's a 9% jump, even though the lower income tax withholding schedules went into effect in February.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/income-tax-revenues-trump-tax-cuts-economic-growth/

Some of this comes from tax payments for last year's growth, when the deregulation tax was slashed. 

Imagine the size of this story if the facts were the other way around, revenues down by the size of the rate cut or more.  Front page for sure!

But, these are professional journalists! With credentials!


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Strassel: Index capital gains
« Reply #812 on: July 19, 2018, 08:34:10 AM »
I sent this idea and this article to my 'friend', my congressman , a Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, and asked him in most urgent terms to have the House persuade the president to do this.
------
Trump may understand the benefit of this too well, being that he is in the same business as me.  )   The Left and the media, I repeat myself, will go berserk with the idea this change will benefit Trump personally. Sadly, that means more to them than increasing US tax revenues growing the economy or closing the deficit.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Tax Policy, Heritage, two simple ideas to double the benefits of tax reform
« Reply #813 on: July 20, 2018, 06:37:57 AM »
Simply making the temporary provisions permanent would cause the economy to be 2.8% larger than it would have been without tax reform.

Step two simplifies how businesses are taxed on their investments. Expanding expensing to all investments, with permanent tax cuts, would increase U.S. GDP by 4.3%.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/two-steps-double-tax-reforms-economic-benefits

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
WSJ: Tax Revenues Are Up 1%, Despite Trump Tax Cuts
« Reply #814 on: August 20, 2018, 07:25:30 AM »
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2018/08/wsj-personal-income-tax-revenues-are-up-79-despite-trump-tax-cuts.html

Did anyone see this coming?

Deficits up is a spending problem.  Too many Democrats and too many in Congress with an R who vote like Dems.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49762
    • View Profile
Tax Revenues up BECAUSE of Trump Tax Cuts
« Reply #815 on: August 20, 2018, 08:39:21 AM »
"Did any one see this coming?"

We did!  :-D :-D :-D

PS:  Notice my subject line  :wink:

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Revenues up BECAUSE of Trump Tax Cuts
« Reply #816 on: August 21, 2018, 06:42:34 AM »
"Did any one see this coming?"

We did!  :-D :-D :-D

PS:  Notice my subject line  :wink:

Yes, I like the subject line!

That we got this right proves it was possible to get it right. But how did the opponents, the media, the CBO all get it SO wrong?  How many Washington Post 'fact check' columns does this prove false??  " it adds $1.3 trillion to the debt"?  No. It is the failure to keep your economy vibrant and competitive that buries you in debt. Ask Venezuela.

The Laffer Curve says that some tax rate decreases will yield more revenue, not all. Which ones? The ones where the rates are already so high that they are  horribly stifling growth and lowering them unleashes it.

Even Chuck Schumer's top priority for Senate Democrats, assuming Hillary had won, was to lower the corporate tax rates. Yet in partisan divide, not one Democrat voted for these rate cuts that grew wages, income and employment. Tax rates so high that even Democrats wanted to lower them is a sign of tax rates too high!

In this case, the corporate rates were holding down revenue from other taxes such as employment taxes. The average American pays 97 different taxes in a year.  When 5,000 employers leave the country it isn't just the corporate tax revenue we lose.

You can't have sustained revenue growth without vigorous economic growth. It is about time that the Big Spenders get on board with growing the private sector to fund spending. Either grow the economy or shrink the programs ( better yet, both). If the "Progressive" Party is against progress, then let's rightly rename them the regressive or the depressive party.

It's also about time that are schools and colleges start teaching honest, incentive-based economics.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Tax Policy, Obama's economic advisor
« Reply #817 on: August 27, 2018, 07:45:29 AM »
Christina Romer: Tax increases on investment have a huge, contractionary effect.

http://boards.fool.com/taxes-and-economic-growth-29535250.aspx
--------------
Not exactly new research, this is from 2007. The experts, even on the left, knew better all along. Why don't we all just agree on a tax system that maximizes growth?  The rest of the BS is just pandering for uninformed votes.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
2018 tax rate cuts benefit everyone
« Reply #819 on: August 28, 2018, 06:06:15 AM »
https://www.westernjournal.com/newest-study-debunks-myth-rich-benefit-trump-tax-cuts/

Great post ccp. Too bad these truths aren't the headlines on every National and local newspaper.

From the article: 

"According to the study, the lifetime benefits of the tax cuts would be worth more than $20,000 for an average-age household earning the national average income even if there were no economic growth. That rises to between $60,000 and $70,000 given Kotlikoff’s and colleagues’ forecast for economic growth."

I should add that the authors include professors from Boston University and University of California Berkeley, not exactly fringe right institutions or Trump staff writings.

Ponder for a moment the truth and significance of that point. The CBO and the MSM would have us believe that the economy is a fixed pie, stagnant, and incentives make no difference in income and outcomes, yet we all know that is complete denial of all the best known science. It makes them wrong by a factor of three to three and a half fold and it changes the outcome of their argument. Scariest is that they are comfortable being wrong by such a wide margin, just cite the data that fits your argument, as they do with the active doctoring of climate 'science'.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Tax, Trump Says He’s Thinking About Indexing Capital Gains to Inflation
« Reply #820 on: September 01, 2018, 07:01:35 PM »
Too good to be true?  I have given this suggestion multiple times to my Congressman on the House Ways and means Committee.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/trump-says-thinking-about-indexing-capital-gains-to-inflation?srnd=premium

Treasury Dept. is studying if it can bypass Congress and issue the rule.  (Yes they can. Inflationary 'gain is not income!)




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49762
    • View Profile
Wesbury: Its the spending, stupid!
« Reply #821 on: September 17, 2018, 11:49:04 AM »
The Growing Deficit To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 9/17/2018

The U.S. federal government reported last week that it ran a deficit of $214 billion in August, the fifth largest deficit for any single month in US history.

The Congressional Budget Office thinks these numbers are consistent with a budget deficit of about $800 billion for Fiscal Year 2018, which ends September 30. If so, that would be the largest annual deficit in raw dollar terms since FY 2012. This deficit is roughly 4.0% of GDP, which would be the highest since FY 2013.

For many, this growing deficit is a dagger to the heart of the tax cut enacted in late 2017. They say the tax cut was irresponsible. However, economic growth has picked up because of the tax cut, and growth is the key to higher fiscal receipts down the road – in fact tax receipts are still hitting record highs.

Between 2010 and 2017, the U.S. passed two large tax hikes, yet the deficit was still $665 billion in FY 2017, which was not exactly a model of fiscal purity. As a result, we call "politics" on all those now fretting about deficit spending only when a tax cut is involved.

It's important to recognize that the tax cut has, so far, reduced revenue compared to how much the federal government would have collected in the absence of the tax cut. But, total federal receipts are likely to end the current Fiscal Year up slightly from last year and at a record high. Next year, according to the CBO, revenue should be up 4.6% and at another record high.

In other words, the tax cut didn't lead to an outright reduction in revenue, it just slowed the growth of revenue.

Spending is the problem. Total federal spending will rise about 4% this year and is scheduled to rise about 8% next year. In spite of an acceleration in economic growth, government spending is rising faster than GDP.

While this is a long-term problem, it will not turn the U.S. into Greece overnight. No fiscal crisis for the nation is at hand. Last year, net interest on the federal debt amounted to 1.4% of GDP. The Congressional Budget Office projects that net interest will hit 2.9% of GDP before some of the tax cuts theoretically expire in the middle of the next decade.

That is a large increase, but net interest relative to GDP hovered between 2.5% and 3.2% from 1982 through 1998. The U.S. paid this price and the economy still grew more rapidly than it has in the past decade. The U.S. didn't become Greece.

Compare two economies of equal size. One spends $500 billion, but with zero taxes, the other spends $2 trillion, but taxes $1.5 trillion. Both have $500 billion deficits, but the first economy would be more vibrant and could finance the debt more easily. It's not that deficits don't matter, but deficits alone are not a reason for investors to run for the hills.

And when deficits are partly caused by more federal spending on interest payments you know who will hate it the most? The politicians.

Here's why. Politicians like to deliver things their constituents are grateful for, things that make voters more likely to vote for them rather than someone else. Tax cuts help politicians get more votes, at least from those who actually pay taxes. Government programs can also help incumbents corral votes. Pass out government checks and you can get more votes, too. But bondholders have no gratitude for politicians when they receive the interest they're owed on Treasury securities.

Higher net interest payments will eventually "crowd out" future tax cuts and government programs, making it tougher for incumbents to get re-elected. As net interest payments rise, more politicians will start obsessing about the deficit again, just like in the 1980s and 1990s.

The true threat to long-term fiscal health is spending. If left unreformed, entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will take a ceaselessly higher share of GDP, leading to a larger and larger share of American production being allocated according to political gamesmanship rather than individual initiative, in turn eroding the character of the American people.

Unless we change the path of spending, last year's tax cuts - and the boost to economic growth they've already provided - risk getting overwhelmed in the long run. But, for investors, this isn't an immediate problem. After all, deficit fears have been around for decades and equities still rose. Stay bullish, for now.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Wesbury: Its the spending, stupid!
« Reply #822 on: September 18, 2018, 09:25:37 AM »
Record tax revenues while government spending continues to outpace the growth of the private economy. It IS the spending, stupid.

By stupid, of course we mean economically ignorant as anyone is if they follow only the Left and the mainstream media.

Here is how spending works.  In the natural course of (government-caused) business cycles, as the unemployment rate goes up, more and more people need help from government programs, and spending goes up.  Then when the economy recovers and workers return to work, fewer people need less and less help from the government and so spending goes  ...   up exen faster.  Spending more is all they know.  They do it to get reelected, not to help people. And you are cruel if you don't keep spending more - especially when the economy is doing well.

"Baseline spending" is more important to our elected leaders than the deficit, the debt or the national savings rate.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2018, 10:03:07 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10161
    • View Profile
Too late , too little
« Reply #823 on: October 22, 2018, 05:09:06 AM »
and with the debt soaring it has not chance:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/trump-to-unveil-major-tax-cut-for-middle-income-people-before-election/

We will not see a another major tax cut in my life time.  Anyone care to wager a dollar ?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Two ways we look at Tax Policy
« Reply #824 on: October 29, 2018, 07:36:47 AM »
There are two ways to look at tax rate cuts and tax policy:

Paul Ryan on Face the Nation tries to explain one way:
"We, as leaders, we have got to figure out how do we make inclusive aspirational politics strategically valuable again? "
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-speaker-paul-ryan-rep-elise-stefanik-on-face-the-nation-october-28-2018/

In other words, the purpose of the tax rate cuts is to grow the economy.  [Deregulation is also a 'tax' cut.] If you grow the economy, you open up opportunities to those who need it most.  

Another leader who was called a Democrat in his day, JFK, said, A rising tide lifts all boats.

We need a rising tide and we aspire to lift all boats.  Everything else either contributes to that or is noise in the room distracting from the mission.

As a result of a relatively minor amount of deregulation and tax rate cutting, the unemployment rate of blacks, Hispanics and women has dropped to historic lows.

Tunnel vision opponents say "tax cuts" went "mostly to the rich".

Nothing serves to pull lost youth out of drug and gang activities like making legal money earning opportunities abundant.  Nothing makes housing, food, transportation and healthcare affordable like rising prosperity.  


Paul Ryan continued:
SPEAKER RYAN: "Look, take the tax bill for example, what is that going to do? That's going to create economic growth and opportunity. It's creating more investment-- this-this company right here-- 30 more jobs and higher wages, more investment in their factory to hire even more people. So what does that do? That helps reduce economic anxiety. So to me the best way to combat tribalism is to starve it of its oxygen, which is anxiety-- economic anxiety, security anxiety. And if we can pass policies that help improve people's lives, make them more confident about the future, then they'll be less prone to be- to be swayed by the kind of tribalism identity politics we see these days."


Now see the other view in a political commercial.  The Republican candidate or PAC warns the viewer that if you elect his or her opponent, "you will lose your tax cut".

This is the wrong approach in so many ways.  If you see the tax cut as only the $20 or $50 you saved in your static economy pay check because you happen to work full time, you have totally missed the point economically and paved the way to lose the point politically.  Accepting the static economy view wrongly concedes the political and economic argument to the Left.  If tax rate cuts have no incentive and multiplier effect and go only to increase the deficit, I would oppose them too.

If you believe in supply side economics, and you do unless you are a denier of social science of economics that studies how individuals and groups responds to differing incentives and disincentives to produce, removing hindrances to growth allows prosperity to expand and spread more widely.  More people have more income and in general, people will be keeping more and paying in more money in taxes.

Take the other approach as so many people so often do.  If you ignore the incentives and disincentives of tax rates and tax rate cutting do not affect economic behavior and growth, you will always demand more services and want tax rates raised to no limit - on someone else who we code name "the rich".  

But tax rate hiking aimed rhetorically at the rich never apply only to the rich because taxing them more aggressively does not effectively bring in more money.  The rich, by definition, have the most options.  They can keep the old yacht, they can move their business elsewhere, they can raise prices on their customers and they can watch their competitors get squeezed out of business and their own market share increase.  They can hire lawyers and accountants and lobbyists and pass on their income to their heirs around the laws like Fred Trump did.

When you stop aiming to grow the economy, you put it in a death spiral.  We are already a trillion in deficit and 20 trillion in debt.  Without growth that reaches to the personal, family and neighborhood, more and more people will always demand more goods and services and demand that someone else pay for it.  And the more we demand of the taking from so-called rich, the more they will run, hide or go idle and nothing but economic ruin can result.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2018, 08:39:21 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10161
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #825 on: October 29, 2018, 08:40:53 AM »
good points.
but wasn't Ryan originally against the tax cut?  because of concern for the debt - or that is what he said I thought.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #826 on: October 29, 2018, 10:19:49 AM »
good points.
but wasn't Ryan originally against the tax cut?  because of concern for the debt - or that is what he said I thought.

Ryan is a protege of Jack Kemp; I think he has always been for pro-growth tax rate cuts.  He may have been against certain aspects like the child tax credit Rubio stuck in.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy, SALT, State and Local Tax deduction limited to 10k
« Reply #827 on: November 05, 2018, 12:35:54 PM »
On our road the average property tax alone is 20k.  Mine is the lowest at 8k with a house worth zero, the rest is land/lot value.  In order to pay property tax of ____, you would need to make income of ____ in the same high tax state and thus would have state income tax of ___.  Then cap the deduction at 10k and your taxable income surges.

20-40% of filers itemize their SALT, depending on the state.

Thinking of the midterms tomorrow and if Republicans lose power in the House because of blue state House seats in Calif, NY, NJ, etc.  

Eliminating the state and local tax deduction completely makes perfect theoretical sense.  But people make living choices based on some sort of continuity and this is a drastic change for some.

Drastic changes in taxes need to be phased in like they were when they eliminated the deduction for credit card interest.  By phasing in the credit card interest deduction elimination people could eliminate their cfredit card interest.  Not true for S.A.L.T.  The first suggestion for getting around this issue is to move; moving is not an option for everyone.

They did not reduce the top marginal tax rates significantly when this major deduction was severely capped.  I get it that they don't deserve that deduction, they vote for the high taxes (lots of us don't!), screw the rich and screw the blue states or whatever, but if power is lost because of this, tax policies in the future will be made by liberal Democrats and YOU won't be better off.

Average SALT deduction among people who itemize in 50 states in 2014, add 5 years inflation for next year's numbers:
Chart too large to post.  FL 7k, Colo 8,600, MN 11,600, Calif, NJ 17k, NY 21k.  That is average.  Half the itemizers are above that and not thrilled with tax reform.
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fchuckdevore%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F07%2FSALT-Deductions-by-state-e1532640257393.jpg
« Last Edit: November 05, 2018, 12:45:02 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Bush 41 1990 Tax rate increase reduced revenues
« Reply #829 on: December 13, 2018, 02:15:27 PM »
1990 Bush “Tax Increase” Reduced Tax Revenues, Alan Reynolds
CATO AT LIBERTY
DECEMBER 10, 2018
The 1990 Bush “Tax Increase” Reduced Taxes
By ALAN REYNOLDS
https://www.cato.org/blog/1990-bush-tax-increase-reduced-taxes

The late President G.H.W. Bush famously reneged on his “no new taxes” pledge and signed the “Bush tax increase” on November 5, 1990, to take effect the following January.   The new law was intended to raise more revenue from high-income households and unincorporated businesses.  It was supposed to raise revenue partly by raising the top tax rate from 28% to 31% but more importantly by phasing-out deductions and personal exemptions as income on a joint return climbed above $150,00  (the phase-outs were called the PEP and Pease provisions).  

Treasury estimates expected revenues after the 1990 budget deal to be higher by a half-percent of GDP.  What happened instead is that revenues fell from 17.8% of GDP in 1989 to 17.3% in 1991, and then to 17% in 1992 and 1993.  Instead of rising from 17.8% of GDP to 18.3% as initial estimates assumed, revenues fell to 17%.  In fact, revenues did not climb back to the 1989 level of 17.8% of GDP until 1995, despite much higher excise taxes since 1991.

Another way to gauge the 1990 and 1993 tax increase is to measure the revenue gains in real 2009 dollars, adjusted for inflation.  According to Table 1.3 of the Historical Statistics in the U.S. Budget, real revenues (in 2009 dollars) soared from $1,308.8 billion in 1980 to $1,654.6 billion in 1990 (26.4%), as the top tax rate fell from 70% to 28%.  After the Bush tax increases in 1991 and retroactive Clinton tax increases in 1993, by contrast, revenues were virtually no higher in 1993 than they had been before – $1,655.7 billion.  GDP in 1993 was a bit larger than in 1990 but revenues fell as a percent of GDP despite higher excise taxes.

A recession began in October 1990, just as the intended tax increase was being enacted.  To blame the weak revenues of 1991-93 entirely on that brief recession begs the obvious question: To what extent was a recession that began with a tax increase caused or at least worsened by that tax increase?  

Some describe the Bush tax increase of 1990 act of great political courage and bipartisan cooperation which supposedly helped shrink the budget deficit “by $492 billion … over just five years.”   But that figure too was (1) just an estimate, (2) only 30% of it was ostensibly to come from higher taxes, and (3) most of the hoped-for added revenue was not from higher income tax on couples earning over $150,000 but from higher excise taxes on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, telephones, etc.  The gas tax went up a nickel; the beer tax was doubled.  Nearly 10% of the revenue windfall was expected from a new luxury tax on cars, yachts, airplanes, furs, and jewelry which devastated those businesses (contributing to the recession) before being repealed in less than a year.

Journalists who look back at what happened to tax revenues after tax rates were raised or lowered, such as Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler, commonly rely on an updated version of a 1998 working paper by Treasury economist Jerry Tempalski.  However, Tempalski only presented estimated effects on revenues, not actual effects.   “Treasury estimates a bill when it is enacted… and sometimes reestimates a bill for several subsequent January budgets,” Tempalski explained, but some of “the first post-enactment estimates proved not very accurate.”  Tax changes were often phased-in or phased-out, yet “the estimates… include no adjustment to capture the long-run, fully-phased-in effect of the tax bills.”  Early estimates looked ahead only two years, later ones covered four.

These antiquated revenue estimates tell us nothing about what actually happened after tax laws were changed.  They only tell us what notoriously erroneous revenue estimators expected.  Yet the Tempalski estimates have been repeatedly cited as evidence that lower tax rates never even come close to “paying for themselves”  by such leading journalists as Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler and Lori Robertson of FactCheck.org, and even by the chief economist for Tax Analysts,  Martin A. Sullivan.

In the same vein, estimated revenue effects of the 1990 “tax increase” are still being cited as if they are facts rather than discredited old estimates.   When discussing tax increases (or tax cuts), journalists and economists must take care to distinguish between intended effects on revenue and actual effects.  Fact checkers can’t fact check the old estimates because they’re not facts. Estimates are just estimates.  
« Last Edit: December 13, 2018, 07:33:51 PM by Crafty_Dog »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Tax Policy - I can't believe Ocasio and Krugman lied to us...
« Reply #831 on: January 10, 2019, 10:47:53 AM »
Continued from Ocasio thread.  No, 70% isn't the optimal tax rate.  Who expected major flaws in Leftists' studies?

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/paul-krugman-political-groundhog-day/
------------
For one thing as I mentioned in my rebuttal there, it's not 1955 anymore!  The math shouldn't be short term optimization, deductions are ignored and not everyone's goal is maximum redistribution.  Piketty, Saez (and Krugman) are debunked all over these threads for leftist results-based analysis.
-----------
"If we were philosophically opposed to redistribution altogether, the optimal rate tumbles to 3 percent. What counts as optimal varies tremendously based on the philosophical assumptions the economist starts with."
...
The idea that the value of rich people to the rest of society solely rests on their tax contributions, as Krugman implies, is bizarre. In fact, the risk that higher tax rates might deter entrepreneurial activity by reducing the future payoff to innovation should worry us greatly. The economist Charles Jones thinks that incorporating this effect into the model might lower the optimal tax rate to 28 percent, simply because innovations—think Uber, Amazon—deliver huge gains to everyone.
https://reason.com/archives/2019/01/09/do-economists-agree-a-70-percent-top-mar



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10161
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #832 on: January 10, 2019, 02:01:32 PM »
"it's not 1955 anymore! "

True . And apparently what could be deducted then cannot now.

I forgot who was just talking about how the wealthy who were reportedly taxed at those high rates never pain anything close to that after all said and done with the write off s they were able to take back then .

Did anyone else see that ?  I don't recall now who it was or what cable show it was.

Just within the past few days ....

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10161
    • View Profile
Here is more that basically tells AOC is full of BS
« Reply #833 on: January 10, 2019, 02:05:28 PM »
This person who has a degree in economics has no idea what she is talking about:

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Here is more that basically tells AOC is full of BS
« Reply #834 on: January 10, 2019, 03:55:41 PM »
This person who has a degree in economics has no idea what she is talking about:

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

America's new best friend, economics denier Ocasio, has her marginal and effective tax rate importance exactly backwards, more on that below.

The biggest reason we can't go back to 1955 tax rates is because  we compete in a 2019 world.  Recently, Communist China had lower business tax rates than the US under Obama.  Rich people can move or invest elsewhere like businesses do.  Even worse, great potential businesses can choose to just not start up in the first place when taxes and governmental conditions are just too burdensome.

Back to the personal rates:  In the 1950s, as ccp said, no one sane and above room temperature paid the top marginal rate because at 90% because it was prohibitive and because there were myriads of ways around it.  The more you made, the more you could pay to have investment people and accountants work your way around it.  You could have a zero income tax rate on a million dollar salary if your pockets were deep enough and your strategy was aggressive enough.  The people paying the highest percentages were probably the working folks who didn't have access to those ways around the tax system.

If the top tax rate is 90% and the richest are only paying 41%, what percent of your efforts go into avoiding taxes and what percent goes into producing what you produce?  Avoiding taxes is about equal in value to making your product or performing your service.  Today we have far fewer deductions available, for better or worse.

We had major tax rate cuts in the 1960s under JFK, in the 1980s under Reagan, capital gains rates reductions in the 1990s under Clinton, and rate cuts again in 2003 under W. Bush.  In all those cases the economy and the revenues to the Treasury SURGED.  The same happened under President Coolidge and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon in the 1920s. Tax rate cuts worked very time they was tried.  It is very telling about the agenda of people like Krugman that they can't admit they know that.  Do I really read more about economics than they do?  They find ways around it, presenting the real numbers as a percentage of something else, for example.

Let's go back to Ocasio having her marginal and effective tax rate importance exactly backwards.  The effective or the average rate is figured by dividing your total tax paid by your total income.  She cannot make a rich person pay 90% of their first dollar of income without making everyone else also pay 90% on all income because of the rarely followed constitutional principle of equal protection under the law.  And you can only put punitive rates on so many voters before you find yourself voted out.

The marginal tax rate, most people don't know what we man by that, is the tax rate you pay on your highest or NEXT dollar of income.  That by definition is the disincentive to produce, the negative economic force in the economy that we want to minimize.  Ocasio who is thinking backwards wants to maximize it.

If you are a spender in government, dollars paid in is what you want to maximize, not the percentage of anything.  The marginal tax rate is what you want to minimize.  Furthermore, assuming a truly progressive tax rate system where the more you make the higher the percentage you pay, the marginal tax rate on the rich is what we want to minimize.  By minimizing that you are minimizing the marginal tax rate on everyone, minimizing the disincentive to produce - as low as possible that will raise the necessary revenues.

Next of course you have the double taxation and quadruple taxation and worse that you get when you tax income at both the state and federal levels and at both the business and personal levels, also at the city level, the property tax, school tax, energy tax, consumption and sales tax levels.  Leftists cleverly talk about only one of these at a time and wonder why that tax rate can't be higher to pay for more free stuff for people not paying in.  And then they talk about adding more layers like a value added tax or carbon tax like without removing any of the others like we are all sitting on a pile of untaxed money wondering where to send it.

I pay more in property taxes than I keep in take-home income.  Also I have paid more in property taxes on my home than I paid for my home and all its improvements over the years I have been here.  That is just one layer of taxation, a layer not even mentioned by the economist Ocasio who most likely has never owned a home or a business.

George McGovern was the most liberal Presidential candidate ever - in his day.  After losing 49 states to Richard Nixon he tried his hand at business and later lamented that he wished he had the business perspective of government fighting you at every turn with taxes and regulations before he set out to write those laws.  Ocasio's wisdom will come later as well, best case.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy - IBD High marginal tax rates and going back to the 50s?
« Reply #835 on: January 17, 2019, 07:44:40 AM »
IBD caught reading the forum?  The growth rate dropped by 40% when Democrats passed the 90% tax rate and we had 3 recessions in the 1950s ever while we essentially no international competitors.  Did Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman ever tell you that??  If not, why not?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/70-tax-rate-socialists-class-warfare/
70% Tax Rate? Another Awful Idea From Congress' Socialist Caucus

70% Tax Rate: A new poll shows that most Americans support the idea of raising the marginal tax rate to 70% or higher on the very highest incomes. It shouldn't be surprising that most people support higher taxes on others. It's called envy. What's surprising is how many people don't.

The Hill-HarrisX survey taken earlier this month found that 59% of registered voters support newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's call for a 70% tax rate on high earners, starting at $10 million.

"That doesn't mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder you should be contributing more," Ocasio-Cortez helpfully told CBS' "60 Minutes."

[As you rise up the ladder, you ARE contributing more!]

And, as The Hill notes, "Ocasio-Cortez has not introduced any legislation to enact the concept but the (Hill-HarrisX) survey shows a broad cross-section of Americans supports it, at least presently."

True enough. Even Republicans in the survey gave it 45% support, versus 55% saying they wouldn't support it. Independents approved of the idea by 60% to 40%, while a whopping 71% of Democrats favored it.

70% Tax Rate: Opposed By 41%
But a number of things strike us about this poll, not least of which is this: 41% of Americans reject the idea out of hand, even on those earning $10 million, who make up far less than 0.01% of all tax returns.  Americans' common sense tells them that raising tax rates on success isn't wise. Especially if it goes to finance the utterly useless and money-wasting "Green New Deal" the Democrats plan to push now that they control the House.

It's truly amazing how little those who propose such taxes understand about the real economy. For instance, Ocasio-Cortez, socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, and others on the far left, like to cite the fact that high income Americans faced a 91% marginal tax rate during the 1950s and early 1960s.

Didn't we do OK back then? Yes, we did OK. But it had nothing to do with high tax rates on the rich. Because — and this is important — the rich didn't pay them.

Start with this: the number of those earning the equivalent of $10 million or more back in the 1950s or even today is actually quite small. So calling for a marginal 70% tax rate on them today is simply class warfare and envy.

It's About Envy
Indeed, if you look at the level of income taxes paid as a share of GDP, it barely budges from year to year, bouncing from around 7% to just above 8.3% since 1970. No matter what the top marginal rate. It's the same for federal taxes overall: we pay about 18% of GDP in total taxes, not much more, not much less, no matter what rates we impose.

How can that be? Shouldn't higher taxes on the rich bring in much more tax revenue?

A widely circulated paper from 2017 by economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman estimated that while the tax rate on the highest earners hit 90% on the top 1% during the 1950s, the effective tax rate — that is, what they really paid — was just 42%, or less than half.

These economists, by the way, believe that a combined rate of 70% (that is, all taxes combined, not just federal taxes) or higher on top incomes would be "optimal."

But their own research suggests that their "optimal" rate is wrong, since no one really pays it.

Well, no rich people, that is. Other Americans pay because when tax rates rise on the wealthy, the wealthy change their behavior.

Changed Behavior
They send money overseas. And they put it in tax-advantaged investments, like government bonds. They find loopholes in the law that let them profit on investments that actually lose money but gain them tax writeoffs. (The solar and wind industries come to mind.) Some just don't report all their income. Still others defer taxes into the future.

They do all this instead of investing in profit-maximizing businesses or working longer hours, things that make everyone better off and create more tax revenue. That means less overall investment, fewer jobs, lower incomes, and less government revenue.

Showing they don't understand fundamental human psychology, the left imagine that smart, accomplished people with high incomes will simply bend over for big tax hikes, like the dorky fraternity initiates in "Animal House," and say, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"

Of course, by the time the left is through raising taxes, the middle-class inevitably discover that magically the left includes them among "the rich." It's an old trick, but people fall for it every time.

What's 'Optimal'?
Even the very idea of an "optimal" tax rate on high incomes, whether it's $500,000 or $10 million, is questionable. As Ryan Bourne recently noted at Reason.com, depending on your "philosophical assumptions" about what constitutes "optimal" tax rates, the rich could pay anywhere from 73% to as little as 3%.

So, no, economists don't "agree" higher taxes on the rich are good. Quite the contrary.

Worse, the comments made by various far-left proponents of ultra-high tax rates show they don't understand economic history at all.

Take their insistence on picking the 1950s and early 1960s as some sort of economic golden age due to high tax rates on the rich.

Contrary to the Democrats' rhetoric, the 1950s was no golden age for the economy. In fact, we suffered three recessions during that decade, despite being the only fully-functioning industrial power on earth after World War II.

About The '50s...
And just look at what happened before and after Democrats imposed the 90% top marginal tax rate in 1951. In the four years before the tax hike went into effect, the economy grew on average 5.1% a year. For the next 10 years, before the rate was cut, GDP growth averaged just 3.1%.

President Kennedy, a Democrat supply-sider, came into office in 1961 vowing to slash the top 90% tax rate by a third. His tax cuts  set off one of the longest economic booms in our nation's history, known as the "Go-Go 60s." (For a quick history of tax cuts, view the video link above).

A fluke? Hardly. Go back all the way to the 1920s, when Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge cut tax rates broadly and deregulated the economy after it looked as if the U.S. might go into a depression following World War I. The "Roaring '20s" were the result.

The same thing happened with President Reagan, who likewise slashed top marginal rates early during his two terms, after the "stagflation" of the 1970s. Reagan's across-the-board cuts set off a nine-year jobs and growth boom.

And it's happening again today, under Trumponomics.

Tax Code: It's Unfair
The point is, despite fawning media coverage of Ocasio-Cortez and other neo-socialists, many Americans don't buy into the class warfare argument for taxing the rich. They know that the top 1% are pulling more than their weight.

The data support this. As the nonpartisan Tax Foundation reports, in 2016 the bottom 50% of all taxpayers earned just 11.6% of total income. But they paid only 3% of all income taxes.

The top 1%, by contrast, earned 19.7% of all income. But they paid 37.3% of all federal income taxes. The U.S., contrary to what the left says, has one of the most progressive tax codes in the industrial world. The top 1% pay more taxes than the bottom 90%. It can't get any fairer than that.

U.S. prosperity has come not when we raise tax rates on the rich, but when we lower them. Americans would be wise not to follow the Pied Pipers of U.S. socialism, who seek to destroy success in America in the name of income equality. But if they do follow them, the success they destroy will be their own.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10161
    • View Profile
from cognitive diss. of the left thread
« Reply #836 on: February 01, 2019, 06:29:15 AM »
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

"effective tax rates " were not same as paper tax rates

the rich were taxed at 90% in 50s and 70% in 60s waw only true on paper
but this is truly "fake news"
the real or effective tax rates were no higher than today

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

The rich were not paying anywhere even close to those rates due to far more liberal deductions

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49762
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #837 on: February 01, 2019, 07:04:20 AM »
IIRC there is also the matter at the level at which those rates kick in.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17454
    • View Profile
New York State running out of other people's money
« Reply #838 on: February 07, 2019, 12:32:34 PM »
https://nypost.com/2019/02/04/cuomo-announces-income-tax-revenues-have-dropped-by-2-3b/

Capital flight from the blue hive.

I was told this wouldn't happen.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10161
    • View Profile
from the hypocritpost
« Reply #839 on: February 12, 2019, 07:43:18 AM »
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tax-refunds-down-84-percent-twitter-complaints_us_5c5e4576e4b0eec79b2379e4

Just remarkable how this Democrat propaganda outlet complains about Trump when some people's tax refunds are down some.

From the *tax everyone we can every way we can party* .  All of a sudden they are complaining about taxes.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49762
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #840 on: February 12, 2019, 07:58:21 AM »
In fairness, the complaint would be not that taxes went down, but to assert that taxes were not cut as promised, yes?


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10161
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #841 on: February 12, 2019, 08:27:42 AM »
" In fairness, the complaint would be not that taxes went down, but to assert that taxes were not cut as promised, yes?  "

Agree.  I was certainly posting how annoyed I was that may taxes would not go down.  Though somehow I got the largest refund in some yrs even living here is Jersey having to pay Democrat Party tribute [taxes] .

I am still waiting for some sort of tax relief (I know it will never come - what we had was, I suspect  the last we will ever see.).

It certainly is hard to deny that the tax cuts directly benefited the rich and connected .
Yes I know about all boats rising with the tide but still this is NOT morally fair.

That all said ->

It is clearly ironic how the LEFT decides to suddenly use this now to bash Trump when in fact it is them all along how have tried to steal as much as possible from those that pay so they can keep bribing their constituents.




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17454
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #842 on: February 12, 2019, 09:49:25 AM »
" In fairness, the complaint would be not that taxes went down, but to assert that taxes were not cut as promised, yes?  "

Agree.  I was certainly posting how annoyed I was that may taxes would not go down.  Though somehow I got the largest refund in some yrs even living here is Jersey having to pay Democrat Party tribute [taxes] .

I am still waiting for some sort of tax relief (I know it will never come - what we had was, I suspect  the last we will ever see.).

It certainly is hard to deny that the tax cuts directly benefited the rich and connected .
Yes I know about all boats rising with the tide but still this is NOT morally fair.

That all said ->

It is clearly ironic how the LEFT decides to suddenly use this now to bash Trump when in fact it is them all along how have tried to steal as much as possible from those that pay so they can keep bribing their constituents.

Vote with your feet.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Larry Elder: Tax rates down, tax revenues up
« Reply #843 on: February 12, 2019, 10:15:36 AM »
Alan Reynolds:  "Larry Elder radio show does something unusual - he cites facts rather than opinions to show that revenues from the individual income tax were higher when the top tax was 28% than when it was 70%, and much higher than when it was 91%."

https://cdn.cato.org/archive-2019/reynolds-larryelder-1-25-19.mp3
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 10:51:54 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Tax Policy, Amazon pays zero federal income tax
« Reply #844 on: February 20, 2019, 11:54:52 AM »
A friend asked me how Amazon can pay zero federal tax and I tried to answer.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-taxes-zero-180337770.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=ma
A link no doubt circulating on facebook.

First, some observations.  The Yahoo article refers to the tax rate cuts as a reason but the Amazon tax was also zero the year before the new tax law.  Then they close with a false statement: "Declining tax revenue has only widened deficits, as national debt has ballooned up and over $22 trillion".  But tax revenues increased since the rate cuts passed.  Spending increased more.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/

Amazon's total stock value is $800 billion.  They have 72 times more value than income, so they only needed a tax deferral in "stock buybacks" of about 1% of value to get to a zero federal income tax.  Stock buybacks cause capital gains to be deferred:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/123115/4-reasons-why-investors-buybacks.asp

Marco Rubio is trying to close this supposed loophole:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/12/investing/rubio-stock-buybacks-tax/index.html

Others think that is a bad idea, causing triple taxation etc:
https://www.fool.com/taxes/2019/02/19/why-marco-rubios-buyback-tax-makes-no-sense.aspx
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/marco-rubio-stock-buyback-plan-misguided/

Amazon pays property taxes, employment taxes and collects sales taxes in large amounts.  The owners of Amazon stock pay state and federal taxes so it is only the double and triple taxation that is avoided. 

Trump called out Amazon for aggressive tax avoidance:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/us/politics/trump-amazon-taxes.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/04/09/trump-is-right-amazon-is-a-master-of-tax-avoidance/33653439/

Politifact called him a pants on fire liar:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/26/donald-trump/amazon-no-tax-monopoly-donald-trump-said/

Go figure.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2019, 03:59:21 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49762
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #845 on: February 20, 2019, 12:09:44 PM »
Excellent post, very helpful!


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10161
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #846 on: February 20, 2019, 03:59:39 PM »
yes good post Doug
This really needs to go viral
Can we get you on Laura Ingraham ?

How about we send this to her!  Maybe she would air it.
Or Tucker.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #847 on: February 20, 2019, 04:28:44 PM »
yes good post Doug
This really needs to go viral
Can we get you on Laura Ingraham ?

How about we send this to her!  Maybe she would air it.
Or Tucker.

Thanks ccp.  I took your advice and sent it to John Hinderaker at Powerline and American Experiment.  He  appears as a guest and guest hosts on her show. 

A little more: 
The 1982 law enabling stock buybacks was passed with a Democratic 50 seat majority House and signed by a Republican President. 

Since then the Democrats have held the White House for 16 years, controlled the House for 16 years, held the Senate majority for 16 years, during all these periods never tried to repeal or reform this.  They offered no help, no amendments and no votes to the most recent tax reform.  The offending party is a Democratic leaning entity.  And now this is all somehow Trump's fault.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2019, 04:50:25 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10161
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #848 on: February 21, 2019, 10:06:48 AM »
I don't know why Tucker got so upset about this twirl

but here is the Wikipedia on this guy Bregman:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutger_Bregman

Love this part from something he wrote:
"Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World[10] promotes a more productive and equitable life based an three core ideas which include a universal and unconditional basic income paid to everybody, a short workweek of fifteen hours, and open borders worldwide with the free exchange of citizens between all nations.[11] It was originally written as articles in Dutch for the online journal De Correspondent.[12]

In an interview with the Montreal newspaper Le Devoir in September 2017, Bregman said that "[t]o move forward, a society needs dreams, not nightmares. Yet people are caught in the logic of fear. Whether it is Trump, Brexit or the last elections in Germany, they vote against the future and instead for solutions to replace it, believing the past was better based on a thoroughly mistaken view of the world: the world was worse before … Humanity is improving, conditions of life, work and health too. And it's time to open the windows of our minds to see it."[13]"

GOTTA LOVE BASIC INCOME FOR ALL AND 15 HR WORK WEEK! 
he is sooooooooo  right .  We got to where we are for such reasons as these.

I guess when you cannot make any logical sense you become smug arrogant and get personal  like he did with Tucker.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2019, 10:11:00 AM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #849 on: March 11, 2019, 08:39:08 AM »
* Somehow I think we have two tax policy threads:
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1477.msg115956#msg115956

Tax Policy, whoops, tax revenues up 10% in a year
A February Revenue Surprise
Federal tax receipts rose 10% from a year ago, in case you haven’t heard.
By The Editorial Board
March 10, 2019 6:22 p.m. ET

A funny thing happened in February that you haven’t read about: Federal government tax receipts rose 10% to $171 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

How could that be? Isn’t the GOP tax reform supposed to be robbing the government of tax revenue and causing deficits to explode? Well, that spin appears to be based on single-entry political bookkeeping.

CBO says in its latest monthly budget review that individual income-tax withholding and payroll tax receipts rose 5% in February from a year earlier, while income-tax refunds fell 13%. The year-over-year increase is important because we are now getting the comparative results for the time period in which tax reform has been fully implemented. Tax receipts from rising incomes appear to have offset lower receipts from the cut in tax rates and 100% business expensing. The February revenue rise outstripped even a 7.3% spending increase from a year earlier, so the deficit declined by $12 billion in the month.   - wsj today