Republican Tax Plan (a nothingburger with cheese)

[TPS]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

That's right, how long can this upward drift of the business cycle last? Your point about how ugly the debt situation will be if a recession hits is right on. Bond prices are already drifting upwards, at least a little. 

 

Right now all/most of the world's economies are kicking it in high gear, can't believe that won't drive commodity prices up, but oil is staying pretty low so far. Low oil prices could be the saving grace against inflation. I was too young to remember the inflation of the 70's, I imagine it was kind of frustrating. Hope we are not headed back to that.

That would require some kind of supply "shock" like the OPEC embargoes underlying the 1970s inflation.  That could happen if Trump/Israel decide to go after Iran, but that would be a little insane...

Assuming no supply shock, oil prices will remain in their current trading range, $55-$65, as US shale helps put a lid on price rises.  Hedge Funds keep hoping oil will be a play, only to be disappointed.  Commodities as a whole are still reeling from the 2007-08 bubble, and the subsequent QE-induced bubble of 2010-2012. The bubbles created over-investment in most areas, and the effects are still being felt today.... 

[row_33]

8 minutes ago, TPS said:

That would require some kind of supply "shock" like the OPEC embargoes underlying the 1970s inflation.  That could happen if Trump/Israel decide to go after Iran, but that would be a little insane...

Assuming no supply shock, oil prices will remain in their current trading range, $55-$65, as US shale helps put a lid on price rises.  Hedge Funds keep hoping oil will be a play, only to be disappointed.  Commodities as a whole are still reeling from the 2007-08 bubble, and the subsequent QE-induced bubble of 2010-2012. The bubbles created over-investment in most areas, and the effects are still being felt today.... 

 

can't have a lockstep freeze by OPEC any more, those days are long gone

 

 

[B-Man]

[billsfan89]

The biggest issue with the US economy isn't the fact that the rich don't have enough money or there isn't enough investment capital available. Corporate profits are at an all-time high even adjusted for inflation, the top 1% (the investor class) has their highest share of wealth and income since the great depression, capital gains rates and effective corporate tax rates are also their lowest since the great depression. The biggest issue with the US economy is a lack of consumer demand driven by a lack of wage growth. 

 

50% of Americans can't afford a $1,000 emergency. If you are looking at the American economy and trying to find out what the best solution is I find it hard to believe that it would be that we need to do tax cuts where a significant majority of the benefits goes to the two groups doing the best in the economy. If you are going to spend 1.5 trillion dollars to improve the economy I think it would be best to spend that money on trying to improve the middle class that is the foundation of the consumer base and suffering the most from globalization and automation. 

 

Why not just do a bigger tax cut for the middle class combined with a ton of infrastructure spending? Also, you have to seriously question the GOP's priorities that the tax cuts that expire are the ones that are for the middle class. 

[DC Tom]

On 2/23/2018 at 10:17 AM, Koko78 said:

 

It's truly amazing that the people/entities who pay the most in taxes reap the most benefit from a tax cut.

 

No one would have ever guessed that simple arithmetic would rule the day.

 

Arithmetic is a white European ploy by the 3% to oppress the 101%.

[3rdnlng]

19 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

The biggest issue with the US economy isn't the fact that the rich don't have enough money or there isn't enough investment capital available. Corporate profits are at an all-time high even adjusted for inflation, the top 1% (the investor class) has their highest share of wealth and income since the great depression, capital gains rates and effective corporate tax rates are also their lowest since the great depression. The biggest issue with the US economy is a lack of consumer demand driven by a lack of wage growth. 

 

50% of Americans can't afford a $1,000 emergency. If you are looking at the American economy and trying to find out what the best solution is I find it hard to believe that it would be that we need to do tax cuts where a significant majority of the benefits goes to the two groups doing the best in the economy. If you are going to spend 1.5 trillion dollars to improve the economy I think it would be best to spend that money on trying to improve the middle class that is the foundation of the consumer base and suffering the most from globalization and automation. 

 

Why not just do a bigger tax cut for the middle class combined with a ton of infrastructure spending? Also, you have to seriously question the GOP's priorities that the tax cuts that expire are the ones that are for the middle class. 

That's by law.

[billsfan89]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

That's by law.

 

It's by law that you can't raise the deficit by a certain percentage over a period longer than 8 years. They could have satisfied the requirements of the Congressional rules by having the corporate and top rates be the ones that expire. They had the choice to choose between the two groups and they chose corporations and the top rates. That shows you where their priorities are. 

On 2/23/2018 at 10:17 AM, Koko78 said:

 

It's truly amazing that the people/entities who pay the most in taxes reap the most benefit from a tax cut.

 

No one would have ever guessed that simple arithmetic would rule the day.

 

But that ignores the progressive tax structure where the people making the laws decide what cuts go to what rates. Objectively speaking the issue with the US economy is the struggling middle class. So why not keep the top rates the same, cut the corporate rates but gut a lot of the corporate deductions so that it is revenue neutral. Then just direct the 1.5 trillion to the middle-income brackets? You could have cut those more if you just left the top rates alone. 

[3rdnlng]

17 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

It's by law that you can't raise the deficit by a certain percentage over a period longer than 8 years. They could have satisfied the requirements of the Congressional rules by having the corporate and top rates be the ones that expire. They had the choice to choose between the two groups and they chose corporations and the top rates. That shows you where their priorities are. 

 

But that ignores the progressive tax structure where the people making the laws decide what cuts go to what rates. Objectively speaking the issue with the US economy is the struggling middle class. So why not keep the top rates the same, cut the corporate rates but gut a lot of the corporate deductions so that it is revenue neutral. Then just direct the 1.5 trillion to the middle-income brackets? You could have cut those more if you just left the top rates alone. 

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/democrats-misleading-tax-line/

 

https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/understanding-why-some-of-the-tax-cuts-expire---get-educated/74266407/

[billsfan89]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/democrats-misleading-tax-line/

 

https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/understanding-why-some-of-the-tax-cuts-expire---get-educated/74266407/

 

But why not have the top rates and the Corporate rates be the ones up for renewal? That would have satisfied the Byrd rule. 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

But why not have the top rates and the Corporate rates be the ones up for renewal? That would have satisfied the Byrd rule. 

Why did every democrat vote against tax cuts for the middle class? If only we had a few democrat senators vote for them we wouldn't be in this position way down the road would we?

[/dev/null]

4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

But why not have the top rates and the Corporate rates be the ones up for renewal? That would have satisfied the Byrd rule. 

 

Why not bring the Affordable Care Act up for renewal every few years?

[billsfan89]

Just now, /dev/null said:

 

Why not bring the Affordable Care Act up for renewal every few years?

 

Because it was passed with 60 votes and doesn't have to satisfy the Byrd rule, stop deflecting the question, this is about the GOP's choice in satisfying the Byrd rule. Why did they chose to have the middle class rates expire in order to satsify the Byrd rule instead of making the corporate and top rates be the ones that have to be renewed? 

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Why did every democrat vote against tax cuts for the middle class? If only we had a few democrat senators vote for them we wouldn't be in this position way down the road would we?

 

I think that's a very loaded way to frame it, you are framing it as though this bill was just tax cuts for the middle class and those evil Dems voted against giving working people more money. I think Democrats probably like any sane person thought that adding 1.5 trillion dollars to the deficit isn't a good idea if most of that money is going to the sectors of the economy that are doing the best. Do you really think the issue with the American economy is that the rich and corporations (Which objectively speaking are doing the best they have been in modern American history) don't have enough money? Corporations are sitting on record-setting cash and they aren't reinvesting it like they have in the past because demand from the middle class isn't there. 

 

I don't mind tax cuts but looking at the way the GOP structured them it is highway robbery that will not have the effect longer term as high cuts on the middle class and infrastructure and another domestic spending would have. 

[Taro T]

59 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Because it was passed with 60 votes and doesn't have to satisfy the Byrd rule, stop deflecting the question, this is about the GOP's choice in satisfying the Byrd rule. Why did they chose to have the middle class rates expire in order to satsify the Byrd rule instead of making the corporate and top rates be the ones that have to be renewed?

 

I think that's a very loaded way to frame it, you are framing it as though this bill was just tax cuts for the middle class and those evil Dems voted against giving working people more money. I think Democrats probably like any sane person thought that adding 1.5 trillion dollars to the deficit isn't a good idea if most of that money is going to the sectors of the economy that are doing the best. Do you really think the issue with the American economy is that the rich and corporations (Which objectively speaking are doing the best they have been in modern American history) don't have enough money? Corporations are sitting on record-setting cash and they aren't reinvesting it like they have in the past because demand from the middle class isn't there. 

 

I don't mind tax cuts but looking at the way the GOP structured them it is highway robbery that will not have the effect longer term as high cuts on the middle class and infrastructure and another domestic spending would have. 

 

Most likely because those will be relatively easy to reauthorize and the others would be much harder to reauthorize.  Just spitballin'.

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Because it was passed with 60 votes and doesn't have to satisfy the Byrd rule, stop deflecting the question, this is about the GOP's choice in satisfying the Byrd rule. Why did they chose to have the middle class rates expire in order to satsify the Byrd rule instead of making the corporate and top rates be the ones that have to be renewed? 

 

I think that's a very loaded way to frame it, you are framing it as though this bill was just tax cuts for the middle class and those evil Dems voted against giving working people more money. I think Democrats probably like any sane person thought that adding 1.5 trillion dollars to the deficit isn't a good idea if most of that money is going to the sectors of the economy that are doing the best. Do you really think the issue with the American economy is that the rich and corporations (Which objectively speaking are doing the best they have been in modern American history) don't have enough money? Corporations are sitting on record-setting cash and they aren't reinvesting it like they have in the past because demand from the middle class isn't there. 

 

I don't mind tax cuts but looking at the way the GOP structured them it is highway robbery that will not have the effect longer term as high cuts on the middle class and infrastructure and another domestic spending would have. 

You keep bunching in corporate tax cuts with tax cuts for the wealthy. Corporate tax cuts were to jump start a tepid economy and bring money back to the U.S. Tax cuts for the wealthy are only about 20%, Apple is returning cash to the U.S. and paying 38 billion in taxes, 350 billion in new investments in the U.S. and hiring 20,000 people.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-tax/apple-plans-new-u-s-campus-to-pay-38-billion-in-foreign-cash-taxes-idUSKBN1F62FJ

[billsfan89]

12 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You keep bunching in corporate tax cuts with tax cuts for the wealthy. Corporate tax cuts were to jump start a tepid economy and bring money back to the U.S. Tax cuts for the wealthy are only about 20%, Apple is returning cash to the U.S. and paying 38 billion in taxes, 350 billion in new investments in the U.S. and hiring 20,000 people.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-tax/apple-plans-new-u-s-campus-to-pay-38-billion-in-foreign-cash-taxes-idUSKBN1F62FJ

1

 

First off that 38 billion is a small fraction of the taxes that they avoided by laundering excuse me stashing over 240 billion overseas. Also that article its self-says that they aren't sure if any of these plans are new. I will put the quote at the bottom of this post I have to get going and I don't know why the text is so big. 

 

The Dow before the election was nearing 20,000 and rallying well for years. Corporations have been sitting on cash reserves that are at all-time highs adjusted for inflation. Corporate profits are at all-time highs. IF corporations doing better were the key to jumpstarting the middle class then why under those conditions where corporations are doing better than ever is the economy for the middle class not booming? 

 

I think that if you are going to jump a tepid economy you should have only done tax cuts to the middle-income brackets and spent money on infrastructure and domestic programs. The engine of the economy is the demand created by the middle class. I fail to see how massive amounts of tax cuts for the top rates and corporations helps the middle class. Why not spend that money directly on the middle class instead of funding dividends and buy back for corporations whose holders are 50% foreign on average. 

 

EDIT: The reason that I lump together corporate rates and top rates is that I feel those tax cuts will be high inefficient in jumpstarting the economy. The top end of the economy and corporations are the ones not struggling and doing better than ever. Why would giving them even more money help the middle class? We as a nation have to make certain priorities and I have no idea why any sane person would think the solution to helping the middle class was to cap SALT deductions and hand out massive amounts of money to corporations and the top income brackets. 

 

It did not, however, say how much of the plan was new or how much of its $252.3 billion in cash abroad - the largest of any U.S. corporation - it would bring home. In addition to the $38 billion in taxes it must pay, Apple has run up $97 billion in U.S.-issued debt to pay for previous share buybacks and dividends.

Edited February 25, 2018 by billsfan89

[row_33]

It’s not laundering when you are using fully available US law to avoid paying tax on US soil

 

 

[Koko78]

41 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

The Dow before the election was nearing 20,000 and rallying well for years. Corporations have been sitting on cash reserves that are at all-time highs adjusted for inflation. Corporate profits are at all-time highs. IF corporations doing better were the key to jumpstarting the middle class then why under those conditions where corporations are doing better than ever is the economy for the middle class not booming? 

 

Yes, the Dow was rising. It only took 8 'Summers of Recovery' to overcome Obama's inept policies and regulations. Having a business-friendly administration who made it a priority to cut burdensome and unnecessary regulations really does affect investments and consumer confidence, despite what the DNC talking points say.

 

The corporate tax cuts weren't about "jumpstarting the middle class" (whatever that means). It was about growing the economy, which benefits everyone. The US tax rate was not even remotely competitive for multinational corporations, especially since companies had to pay taxes in the countries they operated in, just to pay additional taxes just to repatriate that money. Why the hell would any business bring their money back to the US, just to have it double-taxed under the old scheme?

 

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Why did every democrat vote against tax cuts for the middle class? If only we had a few democrat senators vote for them we wouldn't be in this position way down the road would we?

 

Because they'd rather pander to the loonies in their base by playing at being a juvenile 'resistance' to the evil racist Nazi Trump than actually doing something useful like making lives better. The Democrats are more interested in lying, cheating, and stealing to create electoral issues for the midterms than doing their jobs.

 

There's a reason they refuse to agree to a DACA solution, even when a proposal gives them far more than they asked for. It would be the same reason they refuse to put forward their own plan on, well, anything.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Koko78

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Yes, the Dow was rising. It only took 8 'Summers of Recovery' to overcome Obama's inept policies and regulations. Having a business-friendly administration who made it a priority to cut burdensome and unnecessary regulations really does affect investments and consumer confidence, despite what the DNC talking points say.

 

The corporate tax cuts weren't about "jumpstarting the middle class" (whatever that means). It was about growing the economy, which benefits everyone. The US tax rate was not even remotely competitive for multinational corporations, especially since companies had to pay taxes in the countries they operated in, just to pay additional taxes just to repatriate that money. Why the hell would any business bring their money back to the US, just to have it double-taxed under the old scheme?

 

 

Because they'd rather pander to the loonies in their base by playing at being a juvenile 'resistance' to the evil racist Nazi Trump than actually doing something useful like making lives better. The Democrats are more interested in lying, cheating, and stealing to create electoral issues for the midterms than doing their jobs.

 

There's a reason they refuse to agree to a DACA solution, even when a proposal gives them far more than they asked for. It would be the same reason they refuse to put forward their own plan on, well, anything.

Yes, this was my OP in the DACA/Dems slight of hand thread:

 

       271

• Hall of Famer
•  
• 
• Members
• 271
• 15,445 posts

• Report post
•  

Posted January 13

It is my contention that the dems do not want to bring the "Dreamers" situation to a close. The dems want to keep this issue alive so that they can pick away at it and blame republicans for not wanting to do anything about it. The "compromise" proposed by the "Five Guys" was nothing but a sham to make it appear that President Trump didn't want to solve this issue. Trump should come out and make it very clear that he wants to give the "dreamers" permanent residency but the dems are standing in the way. Continually play tapes of Clinton, Obama and Pelosi calling for a wall. Make this about the dems refusing to work with the republicans rather than the republicans wanting to deport the "dreamers". Anyone can see that there is a reasonable compromise here and that a solution should be a no brainer. It's time to put the blame where it belongs.

[/dev/null]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Because it was passed with 60 votes and doesn't have to satisfy the Byrd rule, stop deflecting the question, this is about the GOP's choice in satisfying the Byrd rule. Why did they chose to have the middle class rates expire in order to satsify the Byrd rule instead of making the corporate and top rates be the ones that have to be renewed? 

 

 

Neither the Byrd rule nor 60 votes are relevant to my question

 

Should pieces of legislation such as the ACA or the recent tax bill be subject for renewal every few years, or should all acts of Congress continue in perpetuity?

[row_33]

32 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

Neither the Byrd rule nor 60 votes are relevant to my question

 

Should pieces of legislation such as the ACA or the recent tax bill be subject for renewal every few years, or should all acts of Congress continue in perpetuity?

 

They can agree to a sunset clause on legislation when they want, it’s done during times of national emergency