GOP proposes deep tax cuts, provides few details on how to pay for them

[Chris]

Tax cuts, great? Pay for them? Huh?

GOP proposes deep tax cuts, provides few details on how to pay for them (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-tax-document-reveals-plan-for-massive-tax-cuts-preserves-key-deductions/2017/09/27/684ea40e-a387-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html?utm_term=.92010e14b95d)


Republican leaders on Wednesday proposed slashing tax rates for the wealthy, the middle class and businesses while preserving popular tax deductions that encourage buying homes and giving to charity, according to a nine-page framework they hope will eventually unify the party behind a proposal to revamp the U.S. tax code.

But the document, titled “Unified Framework for Fixing Our Broken Tax Code,” leaves many key questions unanswered. In it, the White House and Republican congressional leaders do not identify the numerous tax breaks they say will be removed to offset some of the trillions of dollars in revenue lost by cutting tax rates.

The framework is being presented to Republicans and the public Wednesday as a starting point for negotiations on a tax deal....

...The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group that analyzes tax and spending policy, estimated the GOP plan would lead to a net loss of $2.2 trillion in revenue over 10 years. The government would lose $5.8 trillion in revenue from the rate cuts and other changes, but it would recoup $3.6 trillion in new revenue if they are able to follow through on many of the unspecified tax breaks they promise to eliminate.

...

Oh, I see, there will be a loss in revenue. But it still makes no sense we need to pay for it. If we paid for it then there'd be no tax cut.



I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible.
The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending.
The question is, "How do you hold down government spending?" Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like.
If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up.
The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes.

--Milton Friedman

[MisterVeritis]

Tax cuts, great? Pay for them? Huh?

GOP proposes deep tax cuts, provides few details on how to pay for them (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-tax-document-reveals-plan-for-massive-tax-cuts-preserves-key-deductions/2017/09/27/684ea40e-a387-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html?utm_term=.92010e14b95d)



Oh, I see, there will be a loss in revenue. But it still makes no sense we need to pay for it. If we paid for it then there'd be no tax cut.



I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible.
The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending.
The question is, "How do you hold down government spending?" Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like.
If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up.
The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes.

--Milton Friedman
Imagine the sheer idiocy of having to pay for tax rate simplification and cuts. It is almost as if we have been lobotomized. Cut every unconstitutional program until the expected revenues and expected outlays balance.

[Captain Obvious]

Republicans are fast learning the art of short term political gains on somebody elses long term dime.

[Docthehun]

Minimum tax rate raised, top rate lowered. Sounds fair to me....................

[Chris]

Spending cuts, anyone? Didn't Trump promise that too?

[Captain Obvious]

Spending cuts, anyone? Didn't Trump promise that too?

You don't cut your way into personal political success.

Rule #1

[Chris]

You don't cut your way into personal political success.

Rule #1

But I thought Trump was different somehow. A real rabble-rouser.

[Captain Obvious]

But I thought Trump was different somehow. A real rabble-rouser.

For the record, I suggested this a while back, that Trump is going to learn fast that his popularity is in direct correlation to spending, a lesson learned from the establishment DNC.

The scheme of giving his golf buddies tax breaks on the dime of the middle class, mortgaged also mind you should serve his political career well.

[Docthehun]

Imagine the sheer idiocy of having to pay for tax rate simplification and cuts. It is almost as if we have been lobotomized. Cut every unconstitutional program until the expected revenues and expected outlays balance.

Are you okay if we start with your VA benefits?

[MisterVeritis]

Cut every unconstitutional program until the expected revenues and expected outlays balance.

Are you okay if we start with your VA benefits?
Yes. However, my benefits come from my service. And my service was Constitutional.

[MisterVeritis]

The tax plan is soft and effeminate. There is nothing particularly bold about it. In my opinion, if anything passes it won't amount to much.

[Docthehun]

Cut every unconstitutional program until the expected revenues and expected outlays balance.

Yes. However, my benefits come from my service. And my service was Constitutional.

The free medical care must have been in the Constitution's fine print under "provide for the common defense".

[MisterVeritis]

Yes. However, my benefits come from my service. And my service was Constitutional.

The free medical care must have been in the Constitution's fine print under "provide for the common defense".
I did mention my service was Constitutional.


This is an example of why I believe you are dishonest.

[Docthehun]

Yes. However, my benefits come from my service. And my service was Constitutional.

I did mention my service was Constitutional.




This is an example of why I believe you are dishonest.

The service was indeed Constitutional; the VA benefits a much later add on. Tis' you that's the dishonest poster.

[MisterVeritis]

The service was indeed Constitutional; the VA benefits a much later add on. Tis' you that's the dishonest poster.
You lie. This is why I believe you are dishonest.

I have spoken truly. My benefits were given as a result of my service.

[Chris]

I think the cuts should be across the board.

[MisterVeritis]

I think the cuts should be across the board.
Unfortunately, President Trump is on the wrong side. He is not pushing bold, aggressive, useful tax reform. It is a shame.

[Chris]

Unfortunately, President Trump is on the wrong side. He is not pushing bold, aggressive, useful tax reform. It is a shame.

Right, he's a progressive liberal.

[MisterVeritis]

Right, he's a progressive liberal.
Well, no.

I am disappointed that he is not pushing hard for a bold tax reduction plan.

[Peter1469]

Republicans are fast learning the art of short term political gains on somebody elses long term dime.
Don't forget some republicans want to add to the debt to "kill the beast." They don't believe a US government can control the deficit, so their plan is to crash the economy and force the issue.

[Peter1469]

But I thought Trump was different somehow. A real rabble-rouser.
Trump thinks deficit spending at low interest rates is a good thing.

He also is willing to default with interest rates rise.

[Chris]

Trump thinks deficit spending at low interest rates is a good thing.

He also is willing to default with interest rates rise.

Technically he's right, borrowing at a low-interest rate is better than high. If the government were a business able to profit off the risk.

[Docthehun]

Technically he's right, borrowing at a low-interest rate is better than high. If the government were a business able to profit off the risk.

It really depends on the reason you're borrowing the money. If it's for investment and the expected rate of return exceeds the cost of interest, then the lower the rate, the better. If however, you're borrowing the money to pay current expenses (deficit spending) or refinancing old expenses (debt), the cost of money only exasperates the problem. The country as a whole, falls into category two.

[Peter1469]

Technically he's right, borrowing at a low-interest rate is better than high. If the government were a business able to profit off the risk.

The problem is if interest rates return to historic averages, our discretionary budget would be used to pay interest. Game over.

[Captain Obvious]

The problem is if interest rates return to historic averages, our discretionary budget would be used to pay interest. Game over.

Makes it all sound like real estate financing ironically

[Captdon]

Cut every unconstitutional program until the expected revenues and expected outlays balance.

Yes. However, my benefits come from my service. And my service was Constitutional.

How nice. My benefits come from paying for them. That's Constitutional.

[Tahuyaman]

GOP proposes deep tax cuts, provides few details on how to pay for them
This idea that tax cuts need to be paid for is absurd. Every time rates are cut, revenues increase into government.

The left doesn't oppose tax cuts because revenues decrease. They oppose them because government then doesn't have as much power over the achievers and job creators.

[Chris]

GOP proposes deep tax cuts, provides few details on how to pay for them
This idea that tax cuts need to be paid for is absurd. Every time rates are cut, revenues increase into government.

The left doesn't oppose tax cuts because revenues decrease. They oppose them because government then doesn't have as much power over the achievers and job creators.


Paying for it seems to be a euphemism:


A third priority requires that tax reform be paid for. The best way to do that, however, is to restrain spending. We're $20 trillion in debt and heading once again to a $1 trillion deficit, even before the tax cuts. Extending and strictly enforcing the previously bipartisan and quite modest Budget Control Act caps of 2011 until 2025 would pay for tax reform without resorting to new sources of revenue such as the misguided value-added tax, a carbon tax or a border adjustment tax.

@ https://www.creators.com/read/veronique-de-rugy/09/17/3-priorities-to-guide-tax-reform

[Tahuyaman]

The Democrats opposition to Trump's tax plan demonstrated that they completely ignore reality and that they are stuck on their silly class warfare talking points.

Trump's plan actuall raises tax rates on the very wealthy. It also gives the congress more latitude to raise them even more on the top 1%.

This plan represents populism, not conservatism. The Democrats are opposing it, but it is something that they would propose if they were the majority.