ppaw1999;1879950 wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/house-gop-set-unveil-tax-overhaul-keeps-retirement-083139413--finance.html

I am curious to see how this works out. I like some of the changes but I hate adding 1.5 trillion to the national debt. I keep waiting for someone to tackle this problem. It just keeps getting kicked down the road.

This sentence in that article is complete bullshit:

"The proposal would add $1.5 trillion to the nation's debt over the next decade ..."



Hell, they would almost eliminate the annual deficit by eliminating the state and local tax deduction. Not to mention the substantial economic growth this generates which results in MORE tax revenue, not less. Damn, I get tired of having to repeat facts.

QuakerOats;1879954 wrote:This sentence in that article is complete bullshit:

"The proposal would add $1.5 trillion to the nation's debt over the next decade ..."



Hell, they would almost eliminate the annual deficit by eliminating the state and local tax deduction. Not to mention the substantial economic growth this generates which results in MORE tax revenue, not less. Damn, I get tired of having to repeat facts.

I hope you are right. I have seen trickle down economics before and it hasn't worked. I hope this is something different.

When Ronald Reagan cut tax rates, the income tax revenues to the US Treasury nearly doubled over his tenure.

Same for JFK.

If the jackasses in Congress piss away all the additional revenues, they should go to jail.

ppaw1999;1879955 wrote:I hope you are right. I have seen trickle down economics before and it hasn't worked. I hope this is something different.

Can you name me one legitimate economist that has ever advocated this trickle down theory?

QuakerOats;1879957 wrote:When Ronald Reagan cut tax rates, the income tax revenues to the US Treasury nearly doubled over his tenure.

Same for JFK.

If the jackasses in Congress piss away all the additional revenues, they should go to jail.

If you’re going to cut taxes, you’re going to need to cut spending. It’s as simple as that.

like_that;1879958 wrote:Can you name me one legitimate economist that has ever advocated this trickle down theory?

Just about every one that isn't pushing a liberal political agenda. It's generally accepted that higher taxes are associated with slower growth and higher unemployment, which shouldn't be at all surprising.

It's just more complex than the clown theory espoused by liberals of business owners directly passing their tax cuts on down - that's how tax INCREASES work.

Or maybe I should have just said "trickle down" isn't really an economic theory, and tax cuts are not "trickle down" economics but stimulus.

They are cutting tax RATES, not taxes. When RATES are cut, it stimulates the economy, significant growth occurs creating more taxable income, and ultimately tax REVENUES increase. Happens every time.


If you want to talk about out-of-control spending, that is a different topic. Obviously spending could be cut by 20%, and no one would even notice, but no one has the balls to try it.

QuakerOats;1879962 wrote:They are cutting tax RATES, not taxes.

You're making a distinction without a difference. You don't get $1.5T lower revenues because the average rate/collection is higher.

And revenues go up because the economy grows (it will grow without the cuts). I don't think any study has ever shown tax cuts to have produced more revenues (not that revenues are the right measure, or that anyone knows what GDP looks like without tax cuts).

All much ado about nothing. The cut to corporate rates is significant, but otherwise we haven't seen major changes to the tax rate in years. It's generally just small increases and decreases shifting burdens around to different people (usually middle class).

IMO, Repubs and Dems have mostly settled on that taxes are generally around optimal rates. The small increases and decreases each passes are mostly political, and aren't moving the needle all that much. They don't care about it any more and the real fighting (if you can call it that) is over spending.

It is the incremental growth you gain by tax rate reductions spurring the economy which creates additional revenues, not to mention employing several million more people than otherwise and the taxes they will pay. The increases will be substantial. They should also have cut the capital gains tax, or eliminated it, if they are serious about investment and growth.

QuakerOats;1879965 wrote:It is the incremental growth you gain by tax rate reductions spurring the economy which creates additional revenues, not to mention employing several million more people than otherwise and the taxes they will pay. The increases will be substantial. They should also have cut the capital gains tax, or eliminated it, if they are serious about investment and growth.

They have ways of estimating growth attributable to tax cuts. They almost never "pay for themselves", and some of those revenue increases are illusory because wealthy people sit on long-term gains waiting to take advantage of lower rates. That's why the scoring on cuts/increases almost always is more unfavorable than how reality plays out.

Revenues are generally pretty stable as a % of GDP....that's why it tends to be primarily a political, rather than economic, debate. But I'm cutting corporate rates is pretty significant, and needed to be done. I just hope we don't lose state/property tax deductions to pay for increasing the estate tax exclusion.

Saint Ronalds's tax cuts really helped with the natonal debt. It rose by 186%.

Devils Advocate;1879978 wrote:Saint Ronalds's tax cuts really helped with the natonal debt. It rose by 186%.

His tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with the growth of the debt. It was massive spending increases by congress that grew the debt, after Tip O'neill and his democrats in congress reneged on their agreement with Reagan to control their spending. Sad, especially since the tax cuts increased revenue to the Treasury by nearly 100% in just 8 years.

Please get the facts straight.

gut;1879971 wrote:They have ways of estimating growth attributable to tax cuts. They almost never "pay for themselves", and some of those revenue increases are illusory because wealthy people sit on long-term gains waiting to take advantage of lower rates. That's why the scoring on cuts/increases almost always is more unfavorable than how reality plays out.

Revenues are generally pretty stable as a % of GDP....that's why it tends to be primarily a political, rather than economic, debate. But I'm cutting corporate rates is pretty significant, and needed to be done. I just hope we don't lose state/property tax deductions to pay for increasing the estate tax exclusion.

The Blue states will be screaming; deservedly so, because their ridiculously high tax structure will now have to be addressed. The People will be revolting in those states, and rightfully so. It is a shame red state folks have had to effectively subsidize blue staters' tax deductions.

Another solid job report today.



Market looking for its 56th high of the year.





Another company coming home:


The AP (11/2, Miller, O'Brien) reports President Trump announced Thursday that Broadcom Limited, “a $100 billion semiconductor company based in Singapore will legally relocate its home address to the United States,” and in doing so will bring “$20 billion in annual revenue back to the US.” The AP adds that Trump’s announcement “was tied to the release of congressional Republicans’ tax reform proposal, which would drastically reduce corporate rates and makes it easier for companies to deduct foreign taxes.” Broadcom CEO Hock Tan commented, saying, “America is once again the best place to lead a business with a global footprint,” after the passage of tax reform. The New York Daily News (11/2, Slattery) quotes Tan, who said, “From this base here in the United States, each year we will invest over $3 billion a year in research and engineering and another $6 billion a year in manufacturing, creating high paying tech jobs.”

QuakerOats;1880028 wrote:The Blue states will be screaming; deservedly so, because their ridiculously high tax structure will now have to be addressed. The People will be revolting in those states, and rightfully so. It is a shame red state folks have had to effectively subsidize blue staters' tax deductions.

I do get a little kick out of how badly this punishes the elites in NY and CA. Between eliminating deduction for state income and property taxes, and halving the cap on mortgage interest deductions....could easily be talking $30k+ tax increase on these people. But for the more truly middle class, doubling of the standard deduction will probably offset the loss of the other deductions.

People have talked about lowering the mortgage interest deduction cap for years. The state/property tax deduction could become an interesting political football in coming years. And people start doing the math...Holy shit you just raised my property taxes 30%!!!! Holy shit you just raised my state income taxes 30%!!! Which means those people are going to push back pretty strongly against future increases in those states.

I never thought about it, but your right this has been a hidden subsidy/wealth transfer. I think we've all seen that TX gets back more federal $ than it pays, while CA gets less. But TX has no state income tax, while CA has 10-13%. So there's a lot of "free" money there CA is able to collect because it's deducted from federal income taxes, which probably more than makes up for the difference in federal funding per capita.

Bingo

Bloomberg News (11/3, Kaskey) reported that after enduring years of under-investment, the US chemical industry is revitalized. “Today,” Bloomberg wrote, “Dow, Exxon Mobil Corp., and Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. are putting the finishing touches on multibillion-dollar factories along the Texas Gulf Coast,” and each are &#8220art of $185 billion in proposed and recently completed investments.” The article quoted Vertical Research Partners Chemical Industry Analyst Kevin McCarthy saying, “The US is punching above its weight at the moment “in the chemical sector. An IHS Markit report is cited saying that “a torrent of cheap US natural gas has made the country among the most profitable places to produce chemicals, beating out the Middle East in attracting projects. US exports of polyethylene plastic to Asia will rise more than fivefold by 2020.” Bloomberg added, “Almost 20 factories are being built or expanded to convert gas liquids such as ethane and propane into ethylene, the most used petrochemical and the main ingredient in polyethylene plastic,” with the largest “an $11 billion complex being built near Lake Charles, La., by South Africa’s Sasol Ltd.”




Change we can [really] believe in ...

Devils Advocate;1879978 wrote:Saint Ronalds's tax cuts really helped with the natonal debt. It rose by 186%.

Historical facts tell us that Tip O'Neill and Reagan agreed to the tax cuts and the next year/future spending cuts.

The Ds and Tip reneged on the future spending cuts, which had just as much to do with the debt climbing as the tax cuts did.

The original deal was to be debt neutral, well, if you negate half the deal of course the debt swings toward that 'side'.

Another time Reagan and O'Neill acreeed to a 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases.

The tax increases actually happened while the spending cuts never did.

And yet St Ronnie signed the legislation.

Devils Advocate;1880634 wrote:And yet St Ronnie signed the legislation.

I am not saying that Reagan is 100% absolved from the situation, just saying that if we are playing blame, at least 80% of it goes on O'Neill for the bait and switch and 20% on Reagan for falling for it.

Summary of receipts and outlays during the Reagan decade; while revenues doubled (when tax rates were cut dramatically), the congressional dems still spent far more. Sad.

Year	Total
Receipts	Outlays	Surplus or Deficit (&#8211
1980	517,112	590,941	-73,830
1981	599,272	678,241	-78,968
1982	617,766	745,743	-127,977
1983	600,562	808,364	-207,802
1984	666,438	851,805	-185,367
1985	734,037	946,344	-212,308
1986	769,155	990,382	-221,227
1987	854,287	1,004,017	-149,730
1988	909,238	1,064,416	-155,178
1989	991,104	1,143,743	-152,639
1990	1,031,958	1,252,993	-221,036

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

^^^Its easy to spend other peoples money

AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson announced Wednesday that “the company plans to invest $1 billion in the US within the first year that the new tax code is law.” Stephenson said, “With a rate of 20% combined with provisions for full expensing of capital expenditures for the next five years, we’re prepared to increase our investment in the United States. If the House bill is signed into law, we’d commit to increase our domestic investment by $1 billion in the first year in which the new rates are in place. And research tells us that every $1 billion in capital invested in telecom creates about 7,000 good jobs for the middle class.”




Change we can [really] believe in ...

Trump intercedes on behalf of UCLA b-ball; detainees released.


More winning.

QuakerOats;1881685 wrote:Trump intercedes on behalf of UCLA b-ball; detainees released.


More winning.

Kids steal.

Kids get caught and detained.

Trump pulls strings so kids face no punishment for stealing.


That's winning? Getting people off the hook for crimes they committed? How are you not a neo-Democrat if you think that's winning?