You are setting up a lot of dominoes there. I actually could live with some corporate reductions with tightening of gimmicks that are currently used to reduce taxable income.
Yeah, the GOP could end up passing some sensible policy. My thinking is that there has to be at least one more indictment between now and Christmas.
In other words, the final bill will have little to do with 99% of Americans. Say what you will about the bill in current form, it does give tax relief to some people. The more you reduce the bill to its core corporate purpose, the fewer regular people get any crumbs. In the end I bet Trump will insist on that W. Bush tax break gimmick. Expect a $300 check in the mail next year from the government, with Donald Trump's signature in uncomfortably oversized font. Hopefully people see through the BS and understand that the $300 check is coming from Chinese lenders. You're borrowing from your great grandkids.
Why I say, why I say...congratulations son! I do declare that you finally get what them Republicans are all about 'round heah.
I was seeing this morning that 1 in 4 will see a tax increase from the current bill. Those are not good numbers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/us/politics/senate-tax-bill.html?_r=0 Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, acknowledged on Friday that the Republican tax plan might result in a tax hike for some working Americans, saying he “misspoke” days earlier when he said that “nobody in the middle class is going to get a tax increase” under the Senate bill. “I misspoke on that,” Mr. McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said in an interview on Friday with The New York Times. “You can’t guarantee that absolutely no one sees a tax increase, but what we are doing is targeting levels of income and looking at the average in those levels and the average will be tax relief for the average taxpayer in each of those segments.” The truth is coming out.
So I owe a lot of the older people here an apology. I used to be a member here in the 2000's and argued in favor of Republican economic policies. I jumped off the Bush bandwagon early on but I still defended Libertarian economics because I went to a University that taught Austrian Economics and got a job at a Bank and loved the stock market. As I have gotten older I realize now how selfish and stupid I was back then and I wish I could undo every post supporting that bullshit. This tax plan is of course stupid. It's not a middle class tax cut. It's not tax reform, it's a gift to the rich and Republicans keep lying about it like they lie about everything else. They do not really care about the debt, they only care about their rich buddies and donors. We are also NOT the most taxed nation in the world and our corporate tax rates are around the OECD average when deductions are accounted for. It's another stupid republican lie. With my former Econ background I can post studies and charts showing that these tax cuts will probably boost economic growth short term but will have dire consequences long term including increased poverty. The programs that the Republicans want to cut is just mean and cruel. And by the way, corporations are flush with cash right now so they don't need tax cuts to do more hiring. This is just a war on the poor and middle class.
No charts needed. Ronnie promised trickle down, never happened. Dumbya promised trickle down, didn't happen. Now this Dotard will do the same. Republicans are 1 trick ponies. They don't even pretend to stand for anything else.
It's not like anything bad happened as a result of Bush's easy money and deregulation economic policies...it all went smooth and no one got hurt except for that time the entire economy collapsed. Not entirely his fault but a lot of it was.
But at least Dubya did not increase taxes on working American families. He understood that much This is insanity to pay for tax cut for the rich partly by taxing the middle class. LOL
I suggest you go back and review some of the Democrat responses to Bush proposals to reform Freddie and Fannie. And Pizza dude should review the economic performance of the 1980s and 1990s.
I am well aware. Economic performances of 80's and 90's? What specifically are you talking about. If you are seriously going to defend cutting top marginal rates being good for the nation then you've got to do a lot of mental gymnastics. I am guessing you've never actually poured over the data. Stagnant wages and a large growing wealth inequality.
Marginal tax rates are the most influential ones that matter when it comes to economic stimulus. Reagan, like Kennedy before him, realized that. When the top rates are confiscatory rich people will avoid them. Apparently today's Democrats can't understand this basic concept. Surely you don't want to see top marginal rates of 91% again?
Humongo straw man. Even Steve Bannon believes the top rate should be in the 40s somewhere. Surely you don't believe our Whiny Wealthy Class has had it tough the past 30 years. This is still a wonderful country to be rich in.
Strawman? You're the one claiming the 1980s weren't a financial boom. Hell, even liberal outlets like the NYT contradict you. I was living in the real world in the 80s and 90s, so I don't need you to rewrite economic history for me. IIRC Bannon is calling for a 44% rate on income over $5 million. I don't think you understand how few people we are talking about or how little additional tax revenue would be brought in (if any). Fact is, the Obama years horrible in terms of GDP growth, wage stagnation, and income disparity. You are right about one thing though, the rich and the cronies did very well under Barry.
I'm assuming you're responding to someone on my ignore list. It's one thing to cut the top rate from 70% to 50%. It's an entirely different thing to drop them when they're in the 30s. The math just doesn't work the same.
Everybody knows that, even those who argue otherwise. The reason that supply-side economists are paid well is they can say such things without blushing or laughing. Most academics cannot manage that task, because bald-faced liars rarely enter the field. The go into business, where their skills are well rewarded.
And as I have pointed out to you exhaustively, this is only because the months of January, February, and March of 2009 are included in Obama's totals. If you exclude those three months - before any policies of his could have been enacted and for 1/3 of which he wasn't even in office - his GDP growth rate is 2.02%, still below average but well in line with recent Presidential administrations. I do not know how many more times I can say this to you before I assume you are just trolling.
Has there ever been an Obama critic on these boards who wasn't trolling? I think not. It is certainly possible to make good-faith arguments disputing Obama. Krugman did so constantly during Barack's first term. But we don't get those sorts of arguments on this board, just dumb stuff about oil prices or golf or Michelle being fat or the 2009 economy.
I'd also like to make a point that the really dumb Obama critics on P&CE in my time here don't support any soccer leagues in their profiles.
If you were being honest you'd admit 39.6% is a hell of a lot closer to 40% than 30%, but then you are incapable of being honest.
Suffice to say the Obama years were underwhelming, even without 2009. If that is trolling than so be it. Glad to see you finally admit Barry's economic growth was well below average. ]
Well there is the best economic rebuttal I've seen around here in a long time. What's the matter, did you lose the link to that idiotic chart that never seemed to make the point you thought it made?