View Full Version : Up Next - Tax Reform
This should be interesting as there seems to be some bipartisan support at least on the corporate end of the spectrum. However, I'm curious to see how he handles this given what happened to the healthcare bill he backed.
Doc Safari
03-27-17, 09:45
Get ready for the usual lefty spin: tax cuts for the rich. Reaganomics was a failure. Same old story. Same old song and dance. I'll just fast forward to the part where it either passes or fails.
skywalkrNCSU
03-27-17, 09:51
I think he will be able to pass some sort of tax reform even with the complete failure that was the health reform bill. It should be much easier to sell to the general public but the Democrats are probably feeling pretty confident that they can sink it after how badly Trumpcare went.
If he doesn't get tax reform passed this year then that does not bode well for the rest of his presidency or reelection chances.
Repeal and replace of Obamacare was not going to happen. Not the in the first 100, not ever. He had to try though as it was his campaign promise. AFAIC the dems can keep owning that albatross till it augers into the ground and scorches anyone near it.
I hope that he has done Dem support for his tax plans. The GOP is a tits on a boat, splintered party that only wants to feed at the trough. They want nothing to do with managing, cleaning, stocking... the trough. Without dem support he won't get shit accomplish legislatively cause certain members of the GOP will oppose him just cause they can.
Grand58742
03-27-17, 10:35
I'd be perfectly happy if he took a flamethrower to the entire tax code to eliminate all tax loopholes and made a flat tax across the board. Maybe even three brackets of 10-20-30% Or five of 10-15-20-25-30%.
Get rid of the stinking loopholes and offshore "tax shelter" nonsense.
Get ready for the usual lefty spin: tax cuts for the rich. Reaganomics was a failure. Same old story. Same old song and dance. I'll just fast forward to the part where it either passes or fails.
Where do I find your bust in the economics hall of fame?
Doc Safari
03-27-17, 10:39
Where do I find your bust in the economics hall of fame?
LOL. My bust is actually in the main hall of the "Sick of this B.S." Hall of Fame. :jester:
I'd be perfectly happy if he took a flamethrower to the entire tax code to eliminate all tax loopholes and made a flat tax across the board. Maybe even three brackets of 10-20-30% Or five of 10-15-20-25-30%.
Get rid of the stinking loopholes and offshore "tax shelter" nonsense.
There you go. I'm a flat taxer or a federal sales tax guy. Unfortunately it won't happen.
Averageman
03-27-17, 11:32
I would imagine if Tax Preparers and Accountants have a Lobby, these guys are working hard to derail this and go to an easy to read and prepare tax change.
It is ridiculous that I'm shelling out $400 to get someone to look at every detail and I'm still getting screwed at the rate of 30%.
Being a Single guy with few deductions, trying to build a respectable 401K and all while taking it in the shorts by the IRS.
LOL. My bust is actually in the main hall of the "Sick of this B.S." Hall of Fame. :jester:
Okay, but the perceived success of Reaganomics was based on the demand stimulated by the defense build-up rather than by his supply-side measures.
Reagan's policies were actually 'accidental' Keynesian-style market regulation:
A Keynesian stimulus happens when policy-makers deliberately seek to stimulate one or more of the components of aggregate demand to boost output, jobs and incomes during an economic recession. A Keynesian stimulus is designed to actively manage the level of and rate of growth of aggregate demand. An example would be to inject extra government investment into infrastructure projects and finance this through a higher level of government borrowing. https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/blog/qa-what-is-a-keynesian-stimulus-and-will-it-work
Reagan, in essence accomplished this by massive deficit spending on defense, not by his supply-side tax cuts.
Most real economists laugh at the Laffer Curve.
Doc Safari
03-27-17, 11:45
Okay, but the perceived success of Reaganomics was based on the demand stimulated by the defense build-up rather than by his supply-side measures.
Reagan's policies were actually 'accidental' Keynesian-style market regulation:
A Keynesian stimulus happens when policy-makers deliberately seek to stimulate one or more of the components of aggregate demand to boost output, jobs and incomes during an economic recession. A Keynesian stimulus is designed to actively manage the level of and rate of growth of aggregate demand. An example would be to inject extra government investment into infrastructure projects and finance this through a higher level of government borrowing. https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/blog/qa-what-is-a-keynesian-stimulus-and-will-it-work
Reagan, in essence accomplished this by massive deficit spending on defense, not by his supply-side tax cuts.
Most real economists laugh at the Laffer Curve.
I was actually just making the point in a roundabout way that the left has this narrative that anything Reagan did or the Republicans do is bad.
I would imagine if Tax Preparers and Accountants have a Lobby, these guys are working hard to derail this and go to an easy to read and prepare tax change.
It is ridiculous that I'm shelling out $400 to get someone to look at every detail and I'm still getting screwed at the rate of 30%.
Being a Single guy with few deductions, trying to build a respectable 401K and all while taking it in the shorts by the IRS.
Are you able to tax-defer your 401K contributions? What worked for me also was taking 1/2 of every pay raise (if you actually get those LOL) and putting it into voluntary tax-deferred contributions. You don't miss money you never had. And one day, if you start early enough in your career, bang, you are maxing out, paying less taxes and on your way to a reasonably carefree retirement.
Also, trust me, kids cost more than their tax deductions. :D
Averageman
03-27-17, 11:52
I was actually just making the point in a roundabout way that the left has this narrative that anything Reagan did or the Republicans do is bad.
Clinton did little to change what Regan started except pay down the deficit and have some welfare reform forced upon him. He rode that wave of economics for two terms and almost a third.
Had we been left with Carters failed policies we likely would still have severe economic issues and still be fighting a "Cold War."
I was actually just making the point in a roundabout way that the left has this narrative that anything Reagan did or the Republicans do is bad.
I'm not on the left, just never drank the kool-aide. Reagan was a good President, his vision did what was best for national security, unfortunately it began a pattern of increasing deficits which finds us where we are at today.
Averageman
03-27-17, 12:00
Are you able to tax-defer your 401K contributions? What worked for me also was taking 1/2 of every pay raise (if you actually get those LOL) and putting it into voluntary tax-deferred contributions. You don't miss money you never had. And one day, if you start early enough in your career, bang, you are maxing out, paying less taxes and on your way to a reasonably carefree retirement.
Also, trust me, kids cost more than their tax deductions. :D
Buddy, I'm putting in 20% before the company throws in their 6. I could legally put in more, I'm just at 15K and 55, so I could put in a bit more, but with everything else I'm obligated to, it would be a lifestyle change that would make this side a bit difficult.
I adjust my % with every raise in order to boost it up further, but having a 22 year old call and tell me he had an unexpected medical expense...well, you know how that will go.
Dad is still Dad and doing Dad stuff.
skywalkrNCSU
03-27-17, 12:04
One thing people fail to mention is how even though Republicans claim fiscal responsibility they run bigger budget deficits than Democrats. The data is out there, if you look at spending as a percent of GDP since the 50's Republicans have basically always spent more while most of the time cutting taxes as well. Reaganomics would work if they actually cut spending but when you double dip you better luck into something that just really jumpstarts the economy via innovation (see the technology boom during the Clinton years).
I had very conservative economics professors and they all laughed at "Reaganomics" and for good reason.
Averageman
03-27-17, 12:11
Here is the thing about Regan and his deficit spending.
A) If you were stationed in Europe as Carter was leaving office, you were likely setting on equipment that was useless and decades old. The only deterrence to the Russians jumping in to the Fulda Gap was the assumed possibility that Carter would have launched. I think he would have folded like a cheap card table.
The Military needed that money spent then.
B) Had the money spent on the Cold War been used to pay down that spending increase we would have been better off, instead we didn't and before you know it we are doing the Middle East thing.
So I see cycles of ignoring military spending by the Democrats and then the Republicans trying to play catch-up and getting the blame for it.
There you go. I'm a flat taxer or a federal sales tax guy. Unfortunately it won't happen.
Only problem with a flat tax is think of how many people going to get basically unemployed overnight. All those mom-and-pop CPAs, all those Auditor's, tax lawyers, half them guys going to be out of work.
Clinton did little to change what Regan started except pay down the deficit and have some welfare reform forced upon him. He rode that wave of economics for two terms and almost a third. Had we been left with Carters failed policies we likely would still have severe economic issues and still be fighting a "Cold War."
Which was why Reagan was elected. If you look at it, the brief recession of 1979 triggered by the OPEC crisis, catapulted him into office.
And, as Tom Clancy wrote Reagan killed the Russian Bear while America thought he was taking a nap in the Oval Office (paraphrease).
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-27-17, 12:19
Okay, but the perceived success of Reaganomics was based on the demand stimulated by the defense build-up rather than by his supply-side measures.
Reagan's policies were actually 'accidental' Keynesian-style market regulation:
A Keynesian stimulus happens when policy-makers deliberately seek to stimulate one or more of the components of aggregate demand to boost output, jobs and incomes during an economic recession. A Keynesian stimulus is designed to actively manage the level of and rate of growth of aggregate demand. An example would be to inject extra government investment into infrastructure projects and finance this through a higher level of government borrowing. https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/blog/qa-what-is-a-keynesian-stimulus-and-will-it-work
Reagan, in essence accomplished this by massive deficit spending on defense, not by his supply-side tax cuts.
Most real economists laugh at the Laffer Curve.
That is a simplistic and wrong explanation of Reagan and you are old enough to know better. What really made the 80s boom was the killing off of inflation. Now, Reagan didn't have direct control over this, Paul Volcker did- but he could not have done monetarily what he did with out the political cover from Reagan.
44654
You are old enough to know what the 70s was like and the high interest rates and stagnation. Volcker had to kill off inflation high interest rates to get price expectations back in line. Talk about the FED taking heat now? Nothing compared to back then. Killing inflation with resetting people price expectations (inflation) is hard and ugly- and very easy to do half assed, which ends you in an even worse spot.
44653
Yes, deficits and debt increased under Reagan, and for that price we lived for 25 years with out being 30 minutes away from 200,000,000 dead Americans. That we squandered the Cold War peace rebates in the 90s and later is not Reagan's fault. Defending the country and keeping us safe is a the legitimate function of the Fed govt, not all these transfer payments that we keep on doing.
Stop listening to skinny jean generation people who try to tell us about things we lived through. Reagan wasn't perfect, but he was the right path at the right time, and the only path that gets us to where we are now- in a position to piss away being number 1.
Buddy, I'm putting in 20% before the company throws in their 6. I could legally put in more, I'm just at 15K and 55, so I could put in a bit more, but with everything else I'm obligated to, it would be a lifestyle change that would make this side a bit difficult.
I adjust my % with every raise in order to boost it up further, but having a 22 year old call and tell me he had an unexpected medical expense...well, you know how that will go.
Dad is still Dad and doing Dad stuff.
Gotcha, obviously didn't have a full appreciation.
Lifestyle wise, I just got used to prioritizing. MY wife and I bought a new car every five years, we alternated. I decided I wanted motorcycles, so I kept a 1991 Ford Escort from 1991 until last year, and bought motorcycles. I liked to go skiing a couple times a year, couldn't do that and buy a bunch of guns, so gun purchases weren't as often as I would have liked. It helped that I worked in a career which allowed me too shoot a lot.
Eventually, it all worked out, I've been able to go crazy these last several years
Averageman
03-27-17, 12:55
I would have preferred they just repeal Obama-care and walk away from the issue without a replacement. That could have stewed for a while and the difficulties with Legislation could have been ironed out later. Why we don't have a committee working round the clock to come up with a Health care fix is beyond me, it is either incompetence or sheer laziness.
Get the issues with our Tax Rate figured out, fix it and fix it in such a way as to reduce the numbers of IRS Agents by half.
While you're at it go in a relieve everyone still hanging out who were using the tax code to beat Conservatives.
That is a simplistic and wrong explanation of Reagan and you are old enough to know better. What really made the 80s boom was the killing off of inflation. Now, Reagan didn't have direct control over this, Paul Volcker did- but he could not have done monetarily what he did with out the political cover from Reagan.
You are old enough to know what the 70s was like and the high interest rates and stagnation. Volcker had to kill off inflation high interest rates to get price expectations back in line. Talk about the FED taking heat now? Nothing compared to back then. Killing inflation with resetting people price expectations (inflation) is hard and ugly- and very easy to do half assed, which ends you in an even worse spot.
You are right, Volcker controlled inflation, resulting in almost 10% unemployment, highest since before WWII, in an era when folks still wanted to work. I spent the early 70's in the service so it I didn't really feel the burn. When I got out in 1976, my standard of living substantially decreased. In 1979, I was making 16,000.00 a year. I don't feel my standard of living substantially increased, although my salary did, over the ensuing years, just different toys.
Yes, deficits and debt increased under Reagan, and for that price we lived for 25 years with out being 30 minutes away from 200,000,000 dead Americans. That we squandered the Cold War peace rebates in the 90s and later is not Reagan's fault. Defending the country and keeping us safe is a the legitimate function of the Fed govt, not all these transfer payments that we keep on doing.
If you thinking we still aren't 30 minutes away, I'm happy for you. Granted, it is less likely, but we are still 30 minutes away.
Stop listening to skinny jean generation people who try to tell us about things we lived through. Reagan wasn't perfect, but he was the right path at the right time, and the only path that gets us to where we are now- in a position to piss away being number 1.
Number 1, I've never said Reagan was a bad President, I merely do not believe Reaganomics worked.
Number 2, I try not to listen to anyone but myself, but if I wanted to listen to skinny-jeaned folks I've earned the right, I've seen the Fulda Gap. I still have my map book someplace.
You know where I'm going with that, and quite frankly I thought we were past it. Your rose colored-glasses have a different tint than mine.
I think he will be able to pass some sort of tax reform even with the complete failure that was the health reform bill. It should be much easier to sell to the general public but the Democrats are probably feeling pretty confident that they can sink it after how badly Trumpcare went.
If he doesn't get tax reform passed this year then that does not bode well for the rest of his presidency or reelection chances.
The Freedom Caucus will demand spending cuts to accompany the tax cuts. While Trump's proposed budget cuts a lot of programs, those were largely offset with increases in defense / security increases. So, he is about to learn that meaningful tax cuts will require that he turns his knife toward some sacred cows - Medicare, Medicaid, etc. unless he wants to perpetuate the debt problem.
Before he takes this on, he had better take a hard look in the mirror at his strategy. This shit ain't going to work this time either if he plans to sit back and let Ryan hash out a package with minimal WH involvement, and then send Bannon over like Tom from The Godfather to threaten GOP Congressmen when they refuse to swallow the BS. It may have been how he ran his family business with his kids doing the leg work, but the government is more like a big corporation where the CEO must report to share holders and a board of directors.
Averageman
03-27-17, 13:07
The Freedom Caucus will demand spending cuts to accompany the tax cuts. While Trump's proposed budget cuts a lot of programs, those were largely offset with increases in defense / security increases. So, he is about to learn that meaningful tax cuts will require that he turns his knife toward some sacred cows - Medicare, Medicaid, etc. unless he wants to perpetuate the debt problem.
Before he takes this on, he had better take a hard look in the mirror at his strategy. This shit ain't going to work this time either if he plans to sit back and let Ryan hash out a package with minimal WH involvement, and then send Bannon over like Tom from The Godfather to threaten GOP Congressmen when they refuse to swallow the BS. It may have been how he ran his family business with his kids doing the leg work, but the government is more like a big corporation where the CEO must report to share holders and a board of directors.
THIS, A Thousand Times This.
Including everyone from the right to sit at the grown up table and build something workable would be a good primer for the Health Care II.
so I kept a 1991 Ford Escort from 1991 until last year,
Wow, that's a blast from the past! I have to commend you for keeping a car that long, any car. Back in college, my friend bought an 85 Escort coupe, the first generation. I thought it was so cool, Ford's answer to the Chevy Chevette and a competition for the Honda Civic. His Escort ran great with decent gas mileage.
Only problem with a flat tax is think of how many people going to get basically unemployed overnight. All those mom-and-pop CPAs, all those Auditor's, tax lawyers, half them guys going to be out of work.
"Compliance" jobs are like most government jobs. A drain on the actual productivity of the Country.
Wow, that's a blast from the past! I have to commend you for keeping a car that long, any car. Back in college, my friend bought an 85 Escort coupe, the first generation. I thought it was so cool, Ford's answer to the Chevy Chevette and a competition for the Honda Civic. His Escort ran great with decent gas mileage.
The key to having one run that long is a manual transmission, regular maint, and hammering it hard.
Between hailstorms, and my neighbor sideswiping me in the driveway one snowing morning, that car almost paid for itself.
I also have a 1991 Mustang GT Convertible which gets started and driven two or three times a year - didn't buy it new, although I did get it from the original owner.
Averageman
03-27-17, 15:53
Jeff Sessions just gave Sanctuary Cities fair warning.
I can think of one way to save a heck of a lot of Federal Dollars and make a point at the same time. Don't want to cooperate with the Federal Government on Immigration issues? Simply give them nothing as far as Federal Funding in one years budget and then sit back and watch the chaos.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.