Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 24 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 348

Thread: GOP Tax Plan

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    542

    GOP Tax Plan

    GOP tax plan is out.

    Calls for 3 tax brackets instead of 7
    Eliminates the EAT tax
    Doubles the standard deduction to 12,000 for single people and 24,000 for married couples
    Increases the child tax credit
    Repeals the AMT
    Eliminates state and local tax deductions
    Corporate tax rate goes from 35 to 20%

    Liberals coming out saying this is a big tax cut for the wealthy while conservative groups are coming out in favor of this plan

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    20,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewersfan255 View Post
    GOP tax plan is out.

    Calls for 3 tax brackets instead of 7
    Eliminates the EAT tax
    Doubles the standard deduction to 12,000 for single people and 24,000 for married couples
    Increases the child tax credit
    Repeals the AMT
    Eliminates state and local tax deductions
    Corporate tax rate goes from 35 to 20%

    Liberals coming out saying this is a big tax cut for the wealthy while conservative groups are coming out in favor of this plan

    Thoughts?
    Both are likely true since conservatives are in favor of big tax cuts for the wealthy. Thank you for this, I will go read up on their plan.

    Initial thoughts from what you posted are:

    The 20% Corporate Tax rate won't affect much if they haven't overhauled the exceptions, most corporations are already paying below that rate now.

    Eliminating state and local tax deductions are going to be a killer for the middle class and poor.

    Other than that, I can't really give it an overall assessment, but my gut instinct is that it will be more of the same conservative trickle-down economic theory.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    542
    Freedom Caucus
    Freedom Works
    Heritage Action
    Club for Growth

    All out with statements supporting the framework

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    77,316
    I've seen Paul Ryan talking about how this tax plan brings us into the 21st century. I don't see anything there that modernizes our tax code.

    Is the EAT tax the Estate tax? I can't say that I'm familiar with it being called that if so but that was what came up when I Googled it. I am definitely opposed to repealing that (if so) and the AMT.

    I am not opposed to lowering the corporate tax but I think somewhere in the 25-27% range makes more sense and I think you should eliminate pass-through taxation at the same time. I don't think any business should be trying to pretend that it is a person and should pay taxes only as a business.

    People often think of state and local tax deductions as something that solely benefits states like New York and California. But it actually benefits me as a resident of Virginia. We're not talking about a whole lot but I usually end up owing a tiny bit on my state taxes (typically it's off by less than $100-200) so that means that I get to deduct that from my federal taxes. Again not much, but every little bit helps.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    24,112
    On the face, looks incredible for Multi-National-Corporations (35 to 20% cut, no taxes on foreign revenue) and those earning more than 418K a year (takes the top tax bracket from 39.6% to 35%) with >5.5 million in assets (removes the estate tax). The reality is that corporations already have enough loopholes in place that they don't pay a 35% rate by and large (very often not even in that ballpark), so it would be interesting to see if there are any clauses to mitigate that as just being a starting point, or simply significantly furthering their tax deductions.

    The three tax brackets look like 35/25/12, but don't highlight where those brackets are at. Cutting off tax rebates as a whole are certainly terrible for the middle/lower class citizens of California and New York (the biggest blue states).

    On its face, this is certainly not a tax reform plan that has any chance of passing.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    19,976
    Basically seems like a bunch of **** that will personally benefit trump. In other words, par for the course, swamp drainer

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Boogie Down
    Posts
    90,570
    Trickle down always works.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    42,859
    The Estate Tax is the big win for the super rich. Trump's family will gain somewhere between 1.5-2.0 billion dollars.

    Also our deficit will grow - from the overall plan, not just Trump's leavings to his family.

    Most normal people can avoid the 'death' tax due to the total amount of money involved, or trusts.

    I would say somewhere between $10M and $25M is where taxes should kick in, that's quite enough to pass on.

    What happened to the notion of noblesse oblige?

    This culture is in trouble. Instead of extended families people are raised by harried upwardly mobile parents, and handhelds. I see 10 people together and they text people 7' away from them. Everybody is the star of their own reality TV show. Who teaches children about civic responsiblity or the golden rule. Now they have a President that exhorts them with vulgar language and twisted hateful logic.
    Last edited by bagwell368; 09-27-2017 at 04:38 PM.
    I am not a con artist! I am a businessman! I have a big brain and I'm good at making deals! People are just jealous of my BIG BRAIN! BAD!

    Guess who? The future X-Presdent...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    16,130
    "My plan is for the working people and my plan is for jobs," he told reporters. "No, I don't benefit," he said, adding, "I think there's very little benefit for people of wealth."

    Sure, buddy, you(your family) 100% benefit from it, so you're a liar. Helps the wealthy and the biggest corporations who don't pass it on to their employees.

    Honestly, if I pay lower taxes I don't give a **** about the plan, I don't care about the future. So if I am gaining in this I'm all for it.
    Last edited by Ezekial; 09-27-2017 at 04:28 PM.
    Anthony Mantha Breakout 16-17



    Larkin is back


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    77,316
    I don't get why we're trying to convince voters that we can spend like there's no tomorrow on defense and other things but we can afford to cut taxes.

    Sorry but the only serious proposal is increasing taxes and cutting spending. Anything else is partisan nonsense.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I don't get why we're trying to convince voters that we can spend like there's no tomorrow on defense and other things but we can afford to cut taxes.

    Sorry but the only serious proposal is increasing taxes and cutting spending. Anything else is partisan nonsense.
    Where I disagree here is that companies/corporations should not have incentive to leave the United States - which they most definitely currently do/have been - and it does purportedly incentivize those companies to return. We want/need business to want to flourish within our borders (especially with his new proposal to slash all taxes from MNC's that earn overseas). As is, I see this as far less money being supplied into the economy, and that will not fly in a closely bi-partisan congress, but some of the measures seem to be headed in a very positive direction. It will take some time and they're probably dreaming if they think this will be passed by 2018, but I'm willing to give the full reform a full look once it's unveiled. The current structure is an absolute mess, so starting the dialogue is a positive imo.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    544
    Decrease revenue, more tax breaks for the corporations and top percent, cut social programs, and find a way to finance a war with N. Korea...... Wow who would of thunk it?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    77,316
    Quote Originally Posted by tredigs View Post
    Where I disagree here is that companies/corporations should not have incentive to leave the United States - which they most definitely currently do/have been - and it does purportedly incentivize those companies to return. We want/need business to want to flourish within our borders (especially with his new proposal to slash all taxes from MNC's that earn overseas). As is, I see this as far less money being supplied into the economy, and that will not fly in a closely bi-partisan congress, but some of the measures seem to be headed in a very positive direction. It will take some time and they're probably dreaming if they think this will be passed by 2018, but I'm willing to give the full reform a full look once it's unveiled. The current structure is an absolute mess, so starting the dialogue is a positive imo.
    Corporations aren't leaving the country. Where are they going? Pretty sure they are all still here. Unless you mean shell companies they are using to evade US tax law by imaginarily funneling profits through countries that they were never actually generated in.

    But I actually came into this thread to ask if people really believe this proposal will cut middle and lower class people's taxes and not help people like Trump. Is anyone that stupid? It raises the bottom tax rate from 10% to 12% and lies that it doubles the standard deduction by removing other standard deductions and only increases it by a little bit, which is offset by the above mentioned tax increases. Very sad if poor people out there are dumb enough to think anything in this tax cut (won't call it reform) is designed to do anything other than stick a searing rod up their ***.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pittsbruh
    Posts
    68,935
    As always I'll admit that the tax code is something I don't know a whole lot about and that's why I tend to bow out of these debates because most of y'all know what you're talking about much more than I do.

    However, the Washington Post posted an article by Bruce Bartlett, who was a domestic policy adviser to Reagan. I thought it was helpful. His opinion piece is called:

    I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong: Tax cuts don’t equal growth.


    Four decades ago, while working for Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.), I had a hand in creating the Republican tax myth. Of course, it didn’t seem like a myth at that time — taxes were rising rapidly because of inflation and bracket creep, the top tax rate was 70 percent and the economy seemed trapped in stagflation with no way out. Tax cuts, at that time, were an appropriate remedy for the economy’s ills. By the time Ronald Reagan was president, Republican tax gospel went something like this:

    ~The tax system has an enormously powerful effect on economic growth and employment.
    ~High taxes and tax rates were largely responsible for stagflation in the 1970s.
    ~Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, which was based a bill, co-sponsored by Kemp and Sen. William Roth (R-Del.), that I helped design, unleashed the American economy and led to an abundance of growth.

    Based on this logic, tax cuts became the GOP’s go-to solution for nearly every economic problem. Extravagant claims are made for any proposed tax cut. Wednesday, President Trump argued that “our country and our economy cannot take off” without the kind of tax reform he proposes. Last week, Republican economist Arthur Laffer said, “If you cut that [corporate] tax rate to 15 percent, it will pay for itself many times over. … This will bring in probably $1.5 trillion net by itself.”

    That’s wishful thinking. So is most Republican rhetoric around tax cutting. In reality, there’s no evidence that a tax cut now would spur growth.

    The Reagan tax cut did have a positive effect on the economy, but the prosperity of the ’80s is overrated in the Republican mind. In fact, aggregate real gross domestic product growth was higher in the ’70s — 37.2 percent vs. 35.9 percent.

    Moreover, GOP tax mythology usually leaves out other factors that also contributed to growth in the 1980s: First was the sharp reduction in interest rates by the Federal Reserve. The fed funds rate fell by more than half, from about 19 percent in July 1981 to about 9 percent in November 1982. Second, Reagan’s defense buildup and highway construction programs greatly increased the federal government’s purchases of goods and services. This is textbook Keynesian economics.

    Third, there was the simple bounce-back from the recession of 1981-82. Recoveries in the postwar era tended to be V-shaped — they were as sharp as the downturns they followed. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery.

    Finally, I’m not sure how many Republicans even know anymore that Reagan raised taxes several times after 1981. His last budget showed that as of 1988, the aggregate, cumulative revenue loss from the 1981 tax cut was $264 billion and legislated tax increases brought about half of that back.

    Today, Republicans extoll the virtues of lowering marginal tax rates, citing as their model the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate to just 28 percent from 50 percent, and the corporate tax rate to 34 percent from 46 percent. What follows, they say, would be an economic boon. Indeed, textbook tax theory says that lowering marginal tax rates while holding revenues constant unambiguously raises growth.

    But there is no evidence showing a boost in growth from the 1986 act. The economy remained on the same track, with huge stock market crashes — 1987’s “Black Monday,” 1989’s Friday the 13th “mini-crash” and a recession beginning in 1990. Real wages fell.

    Strenuous efforts by economists to find any growth effect from the 1986 act have failed to find much. The most thorough analysis, by economists Alan Auerbach and Joel Slemrod, found only a shifting of income due to tax reform, no growth effects: “The aggregate values of labor supply and saving apparently responded very little,” they concluded.

    The flip-side of tax cut mythology is the notion that tax increases are an economic disaster — the reason, in theory, every Republican in Congress voted against the tax increase proposed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Yet the 1990s was the most prosperous decade in recent memory. At 37.3 percent, aggregate real GDP growth in the 1990s exceeded that in the 1980s.

    Despite huge tax cuts almost annually during the George W. Bush administration that cost the Treasury trillions in revenue, according to the Congressional Budget Office, growth collapsed in the first decade of the 2000s. Real GDP rose just 19.5 percent, well below its ’90s rate.

    We saw another test of the Republican tax myth in 2013, after President Barack Obama allowed some of the Bush tax cuts to expire, raising the top income tax rate to its current 39.6 percent from 35 percent. The economy grew nicely afterward and the stock market has boomed — up around 10,000 points over the past five years.

    Now, Republicans propose cutting the top individual rate to 35 percent, despite lacking evidence that this lower rate led to growth during the Bush years, and a drop in the corporate tax rate to just 20 percent from 35 percent. Unlike 1986, however, this $1.5 trillion cut over the next decade will only be paid for partially by closing tax loopholes.

    Republicans’ various claims are irreconcilable. One is that the rich will not benefit even though it is practically impossible for them not to — those paying the most taxes already will necessarily benefit the most from a large tax cut. And there aren’t enough tax deductions, exclusions and credits benefiting the rich that could be abolished to offset a cut in the top rate.

    Even if they had released a complete plan — not just the woefully incomplete nine-page outline released Wednesday — Republicans have failed to make a sound case that it’s time to cut taxes.

    Nor have they signaled that they’ll commit to a viable process. It’s worth remembering that the first version of the ’81 tax cut was introduced in 1977 and underwent thorough analysis by the CBO and other organizations, and was subject to comprehensive public hearings. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 grew out of a detailed Treasury study and took over two years to complete.

    Rushing through a half-baked tax plan, in the same manner Republicans tried (and failed) to do with health-care reform, should be rejected out of hand. As Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has repeatedly and correctly said, successful legislating requires a return to the “regular order.” That means a detailed proposal with proper revenue estimates and distribution tables from the Joint Committee on Taxation, hearings and analysis by the nation’s best tax experts, mark-ups and amendments in the tax-writing committees, and an open process in the House of Representatives and Senate.

    There are good arguments for a proper tax reform even if it won’t raise GDP growth. It may improve economic efficiency, administration and fairness. But getting from here to there requires heavy lifting that this Republican Congress has yet to demonstrate. If they again look for a quick, easy victory, they risk a replay of the Obamacare repeal fight that wasted so much time and yielded so little.
    this my sig

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    77,316
    Yea they found a solution that worked when taxes were very high and think it will work today when the tax landscape is nothing like it was in the 80's. Despite the popular myth, taxes are not out of control today. They're just not. A 40% tax rate that affects a very small amount of top earners is more than acceptable.

Page 1 of 24 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •