Trump's tax plan.....You judge!

[BuckToothMoron]

Actually he doesn't. Can you say deficit spending?

Oh, I already pointed that out. Trump WANTS to borrow more money.

Are you now suddenly opposed to deficit spending?

Budget deficit nearly doubles during Obama years

The White House predicted Friday that the federal government’s budget deficit for the current fiscal year will hit $600 billion, an increase of $162 billion over last year’s and a final sour note on President Obama’s watch.

I am not opposed to it absolutely. I think there are times when the US government should and needs to run a deficit. If it is used to build infrastructure that will be around for decades and likely add to growth, then it can be justified.

Here's my longheld position:

Post 15

How do Tax Cuts hurt the economy?

I don't necessarily disagree with your view, save one very salient point. You are assuming that all other things will stay constant. Nancy Pelosi said we get $1.79 of economic activity for every $1 of food stamps. Essentially she is saying if people have more money in their pocket it will stimulate growth, more growth leads to more income, more income leads to more money to be taxed. Remember, whether you agree or not with the Reagan tax cuts, the total amount taxes collected went up.

Clearly if you tax someone 100% they will loose incentive to earn anything. Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve? The basic idea is that there is a optimum tax rate which optimizes tax revenues.

The Laffer Curve turns 40: the legacy of a controversial idea

When Reagan left the White House in 1989, the highest tax rate had been slashed from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent. (Even liberal senators such as Ted Kennedy and Howard Metzenbaum voted for those low rates.) And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 — close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation). Economist Larry Lindsey has documented from IRS data that tax collections from the rich surged much faster than that.

Tax revenues went up under Reagan because we came out of a 16 month long recession. Deficits also went up under Reagan which means that borrowed money was being pumped into the economy, thus serving as a stimulus,
without the taxpayers having to pay for it.

Even Reagan and his people knew they fucked up in 1981 with their huge tax cuts; they passed the biggest tax increase in history in 1982.

And the raised the payroll tax in 1983.

Actually he doesn't. Can you say deficit spending?

Oh, I already pointed that out. Trump WANTS to borrow more money.

Are you now suddenly opposed to deficit spending?

Budget deficit nearly doubles during Obama years

The White House predicted Friday that the federal government’s budget deficit for the current fiscal year will hit $600 billion, an increase of $162 billion over last year’s and a final sour note on President Obama’s watch.

I am not opposed to it absolutely. I think there are times when the US government should and needs to run a deficit. If it is used to build infrastructure that will be around for decades and likely add to growth, then it can be justified.

Here's my longheld position:

Post 15

How do Tax Cuts hurt the economy?

I don't necessarily disagree with your view, save one very salient point. You are assuming that all other things will stay constant. Nancy Pelosi said we get $1.79 of economic activity for every $1 of food stamps. Essentially she is saying if people have more money in their pocket it will stimulate growth, more growth leads to more income, more income leads to more money to be taxed. Remember, whether you agree or not with the Reagan tax cuts, the total amount taxes collected went up.

Clearly if you tax someone 100% they will loose incentive to earn anything. Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve? The basic idea is that there is a optimum tax rate which optimizes tax revenues.

The Laffer Curve turns 40: the legacy of a controversial idea

When Reagan left the White House in 1989, the highest tax rate had been slashed from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent. (Even liberal senators such as Ted Kennedy and Howard Metzenbaum voted for those low rates.) And contrary to the claims of voodoo, the government’s budget numbers show that tax receipts expanded from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 — close to a 75 percent change (25 percent after inflation). Economist Larry Lindsey has documented from IRS data that tax collections from the rich surged much faster than that.

Tax revenues went up under Reagan because we came out of a 16 month long recession. Deficits also went up under Reagan which means that borrowed money was being pumped into the economy, thus serving as a stimulus,
without the taxpayers having to pay for it.

Even Reagan and his people knew they fucked up in 1981 with their huge tax cuts; they passed the biggest tax increase in history in 1982.

And the raised the payroll tax in 1983.

So you agree with me. Deficit spending stimulated the economy, and lower tax rates led to increase revenue. Now we are getting somewhere.

With respect to your allegation that Reagan had the largest increase in history- what method are you using to calculate that? Here is a non-partisan look based on GDP-

The Best Yardstick

So what is the best yardstick for measuring changes in taxation? “The single best measure for most purposes is probably the revenue effect as a percentage of GDP, because it eliminates the effects of inflation, real economic growth, and the size of total federal receipts,” Tempalski wrote in 2006. We concur, as do most tax experts we know of.

And by that measure, the revenue increases in the ACA are smaller than most of the increases enacted since 1968 — and less than one-quarter the size of the largest.

None of these comparisons are entirely satisfactory. For example, the 1968 law that we show as the largest, measured by its biggest one-year effect, was a temporary blip. It was Lyndon Johnson’s “Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968,” and was primarily a one-year, 10 percent surcharge on both individual and corporate income taxes that expired in 1969.

I always find it amusing that Libs like to claim Reagan gave tax breaks to the rich and milked the poor, when the facts are from 1981-1989 the percentage of tax dollars collected from the top 1% went from about 18% to over 25% while the bottom 50% fell from 7.4% to 5.8%. BTW- in 2014 the 1% paid 39.48% of the total tax burden, the bottom 50% paid 2.75%.

How does collecting more taxes from the rich increase the income of the poor? Clearly it does not. We need to address the income gap!

 

[nat4900]

Why do you think Obama continued the Bush tax cuts? What was his reason?

Simple........He wanted OTHER concessions for his policies from the GOPers in Congress......

 

[kaz]

Right, a socialist who wants the country to be solvent. When did you ever want that before?

And you're going to get this solvency by ignoring the field of economics. Great plan

You and your ilk are the only ones who call me a socialist. As for economics, it's sad you've fallen for the smoke and mirrors approach to running an economy. It used to be that productivity meant creating something that was actually useful. It's probably a self defence mechanism for you in that you find it difficult to accept that you don't actually contribute anything.

My ilk being business and economics people. Everything you advocate is socialist

Business and economics people? You seem to be ok with the way our economy is based primarily on financialization. You do realize that real economies are based upon the production of actual goods and services that offer value, right? That's not where the big money is in our economy.

That's just inane Marxist babble. You're also begging the question assuming the truth of your propaganda. Ultimately the underlying value drives valuations. In the short run, leverage is one way to challenge current valuations and get them back in line when they are off. It's all about market efficiency

Market efficiency based upon how many jobs can be shipped to third world shit holes? Lazy and unimaginative at best. More like destructive and selfish but that end-stage capitalism for you.

From the guy who wants to bring low skilled workers here to take the jobs away from our low skilled workers

 

[JoeNormal]

[
Where is the economic expansion from the Bush tax cuts? Or the economic expansion from Obama's continuation of them?

Why do you think Obama continued the Bush tax cuts? What was his reason?

He couldn't get tax increases for the rich past an obstructionist Congress. He caved way too soon and for me, that was when my support for him ended.

 

[blastoff]

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

According to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Trump’s latest proposals would cut taxes by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with 47% of all cuts in 2017 going to the top 1%.

The tax cuts that Trump is now proposing are smaller than the $9.5 trillion in cuts he floated last year, but are also more tilted in favor of the wealthy.

Under Trump’s new plan, every income group would still get tax cuts, but upper income households would receive the most relief, not only in dollars, but as a percentage of income.

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

...

Urban Brookings is a liberal think tank, moron

........and so is Forbes????

Even if it's true, which I doubt, the top 1% pay 40% of the taxes, so the cut isn't as disproportionate as it sounds. And the previous tax cuts, including W's, the top 1% got a proportionately lower tax cut than everyone else

Not nit picking but I think it's closer to 50% for the top 1%, so getting 47% of the cuts is fair.

Note to liberal nitwits: It's 47% of the proposed cuts, not a 47% reduction in what they're currently paying.

 

[JoeNormal]

You and your ilk are the only ones who call me a socialist. As for economics, it's sad you've fallen for the smoke and mirrors approach to running an economy. It used to be that productivity meant creating something that was actually useful. It's probably a self defence mechanism for you in that you find it difficult to accept that you don't actually contribute anything.

My ilk being business and economics people. Everything you advocate is socialist

Business and economics people? You seem to be ok with the way our economy is based primarily on financialization. You do realize that real economies are based upon the production of actual goods and services that offer value, right? That's not where the big money is in our economy.

That's just inane Marxist babble. You're also begging the question assuming the truth of your propaganda. Ultimately the underlying value drives valuations. In the short run, leverage is one way to challenge current valuations and get them back in line when they are off. It's all about market efficiency

Market efficiency based upon how many jobs can be shipped to third world shit holes? Lazy and unimaginative at best. More like destructive and selfish but that end-stage capitalism for you.

From the guy who wants to bring low skilled workers here to take the jobs away from our low skilled workers

You apparently believe that I support illegal immigration. I do not. Don't let that get in the way of your simplistic ideology though.

 

[kaz]

[
Where is the economic expansion from the Bush tax cuts? Or the economic expansion from Obama's continuation of them?

Why do you think Obama continued the Bush tax cuts? What was his reason?

He couldn't get tax increases for the rich past an obstructionist Congress. He caved way too soon and for me, that was when my support for him ended.

Republicans are "obstructionist" when they won't do things they oppose, got it. So now any time Democrats oppose Trump you're going to call them "obstructionist," right?

 

[kaz]

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

According to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Trump’s latest proposals would cut taxes by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with 47% of all cuts in 2017 going to the top 1%.

The tax cuts that Trump is now proposing are smaller than the $9.5 trillion in cuts he floated last year, but are also more tilted in favor of the wealthy.

Under Trump’s new plan, every income group would still get tax cuts, but upper income households would receive the most relief, not only in dollars, but as a percentage of income.

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

...

Urban Brookings is a liberal think tank, moron

........and so is Forbes????

Even if it's true, which I doubt, the top 1% pay 40% of the taxes, so the cut isn't as disproportionate as it sounds. And the previous tax cuts, including W's, the top 1% got a proportionately lower tax cut than everyone else

Not nit picking but I think it's closer to 50% for the top 1%, so getting 47% of the cuts is fair.

Note to liberal nitwits: It's 47% of the proposed cuts, not a 47% reduction in what they're currently paying.

I was just talking about the income tax. You're referring more to total taxes since they bear even a bigger portion of other taxes (e.g., corporate taxes). Either way to look at it is fine. The point is that Democrats see 47% and hyperventilate when that's actually in line with what they pay and they've been shortchanged on all recent tax cuts on a percentage basis.

You realize since we don't want to single out the rich for vitriol, that means we love and worship them, right?

 

[kaz]

My ilk being business and economics people. Everything you advocate is socialist

Business and economics people? You seem to be ok with the way our economy is based primarily on financialization. You do realize that real economies are based upon the production of actual goods and services that offer value, right? That's not where the big money is in our economy.

That's just inane Marxist babble. You're also begging the question assuming the truth of your propaganda. Ultimately the underlying value drives valuations. In the short run, leverage is one way to challenge current valuations and get them back in line when they are off. It's all about market efficiency

Market efficiency based upon how many jobs can be shipped to third world shit holes? Lazy and unimaginative at best. More like destructive and selfish but that end-stage capitalism for you.

From the guy who wants to bring low skilled workers here to take the jobs away from our low skilled workers

You apparently believe that I support illegal immigration. I do not. Don't let that get in the way of your simplistic ideology though.

All Democrats say that, then they advance policies that do nothing to restrict illegal immigration. Do you want a wall? Do you want criminal prosecution for violating our immigration laws? Or you want our current, completely ineffective system? Prosecution after a transition period is reasonable as long as it's not open ended.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Hey, MORON....I am NOT defending Vietnam's working conditions.....If your other half brain were working, you'd see that I was responding to the WHY jobs in the US will NOT be gained by giving rich companies ADDED tax cuts......If these companies need more workers, they'll go where labor is substantially cheaper.

Find a grown up to explain it to you......

No democrat, you were tossing out a talking point from one of the hate sites that do your thinking for you, without bothering to consider what it meant.

A low unemployment rate in a society that has 95% of the population in dire poverty, while the other 5% live in obscene opulence is precisely what your party seeks for this nation.

You are an idiot, which is WHY you are a democrat. You have no grasp at all of economics or business, You spew Marxist rhetoric whilst lacking even a semblance of what the foolishness you promote means.

First off gnat, nearly all corporations in the United States are small businesses. You are trained by your masters to attack business. Why do you think Soros and the international banking consortium puts so much time and money into leftist websites and agitators who incite half-wits like you to attack business?

The answer is because most business is small business. Collectivist rulers like Soros don't like small businesses, they want all business conglomerated under their control. So they use drooling retards like you to attack small business. When Trump cuts corporate taxation, the majority of that cut will go to small c and s corporations doing less than $10 million in sales per year. Small business of course is the heart of the American free enterprise system, ergo the target of Soros and his minions - you.

Tell me democrat, when a corporation pays taxes, is that considered taxed money? So when paid in dividends or amortized growth it is free from taxation, or is that same money double taxed? The same dollar is taxed as income twice.

So democrat, because the vast majority of companies are small and local, do you grasp that they will hire locally? Sure, the friends of Obama like Jeffery Immelt will move jobs to China, using laws purchased from Obama and the democrats to close down domestic incandescent light manufacturing. But GE is not the typical corporation. And GE pays no taxes as it is, since they are part of the corrupt democrat machine. These cuts will go to local businesses that have 10 and 20 people working for them. The giant conglomerates bought off the corrupt democrats long ago and are exempt from taxes.

 

[AntonToo]

"How does what you just said connect to dynamic effects of tax-cutting?"

When you cut taxes, the wealthy invest more and create more jobs which helps everyone else.

Also, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, yet every cut has involved their getting far less than that as a percent of tax cuts.

Funny how again, all you care about is the money and how it affects you. You're clearly not in the top 1%. So again you want to make sure that people not named antontoo are paying as much of it as possible.

It's all about the money for you

Kaz that sounds wonderful, except you are neglecting the very real DOWNSIDES tax cuts ACTUALLY do have.

When people pay less taxes, government collects less taxes and as a result our national budget deficit increases. You can argue that ultimate revenue reduction will be somewhat offset, but that would only account for small fraction of upfront revenue reductions.

We currently at 20Trillion dollar national debt and are on a path to long term insolvency, Trumps tax-cuts only make fiscal situation worse, 5-10Trillion dollars worse within 10 years no matter how rosy of dynamic effects we'll make allowance for.

The way you are talking about this is standard fare right wing free lunch economic theories, where people pay less taxes, government collects same (or even more if you are really bat-sht crazy) revenues. Everyone wins and the reason why that myth sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

What can I say? You're just wrong and don't know what you are talking about. Tax cuts cause higher deficits in the first 2-3 years, then over time the revenue from the economic expansion dwarfs it.

I do this for a living, you post on message boards

I learned this in economics and understand the math behind it (I was also a math major) and you're parroting liberal politicians.

I'll give your opinion all the consideration it deserves

That is both arrogant and ignorant post. You certainly DID NOT "learn it in economics" because no economic course would teach such a falsehood.

It is ignorant because you will hardly find a single economist that would suggest that Bush's tax cuts, extended by Obama and now these new Trump tax cuts are self-financing economic free lunch. EVERYBODY loves downside-free economic policy. Why would I or anyone else, left or right, not want to pay less taxes?

On the contrary, there is universal concensus among eocnomists that they do increase deficits and that the partisan disagreement is only in the potency of the fractional dynamic effects.

Here, read up what sane, non-ignorant conservative tax-cut lovers sound like:

In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the same thing.

Greg Mankiw's Blog: On Charlatans and Cranks

 

[Dragonlady]

I love these reports, have any of these "experts" been right about anything? They never take growth into account, it's why in the 80s tax revenue went UP when taxes went DOWN. Oh and jobs were created. 1% growth is not acceptable

Jobs were created because the government doubled the deficit to fund the military buildup. Revenues uncreased because big military contractors made so much money. But at the opposite end, food stamp usage doubled, poverty increased, and wages stagnated. And overall, Reagan didn't add nearly as many jobs as either Obama or Clinton.

Overall, the economy performed far better under Obama than Reagan. What's more, the stock market crashed under Reagan, destabilized by the free market trickle down policies. And the great transfer of wealth began with Reagan's Tax Cuts.

 

[Dragonlady]

You are an idiot, which is WHY you are a democrat. You have no grasp at all of economics or business, You spew Marxist rhetoric whilst lacking even a semblance of what the foolishness you promote means.

First off gnat, nearly all corporations in the United States are small businesses. You are trained by your masters to attack business. Why do you think Soros and the international banking consortium puts so much time and money into leftist websites and agitators who incite half-wits like you to attack business?

Using rightwing talking points that deny reality is no better. Trump isn't cutting taxes for "small businesses". He's cutting taxes for businesses big enough to offshore their manufacturing. In hopes of them bring the jobs back, which they won't. They'll take the cheaper taxes and stay where they are.

 

[kaz]

"How does what you just said connect to dynamic effects of tax-cutting?"

When you cut taxes, the wealthy invest more and create more jobs which helps everyone else.

Also, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, yet every cut has involved their getting far less than that as a percent of tax cuts.

Funny how again, all you care about is the money and how it affects you. You're clearly not in the top 1%. So again you want to make sure that people not named antontoo are paying as much of it as possible.

It's all about the money for you

Kaz that sounds wonderful, except you are neglecting the very real DOWNSIDES tax cuts ACTUALLY do have.

When people pay less taxes, government collects less taxes and as a result our national budget deficit increases. You can argue that ultimate revenue reduction will be somewhat offset, but that would only account for small fraction of upfront revenue reductions.

We currently at 20Trillion dollar national debt and are on a path to long term insolvency, Trumps tax-cuts only make fiscal situation worse, 5-10Trillion dollars worse within 10 years no matter how rosy of dynamic effects we'll make allowance for.

The way you are talking about this is standard fare right wing free lunch economic theories, where people pay less taxes, government collects same (or even more if you are really bat-sht crazy) revenues. Everyone wins and the reason why that myth sounds too good to be true is because IT IS.

What can I say? You're just wrong and don't know what you are talking about. Tax cuts cause higher deficits in the first 2-3 years, then over time the revenue from the economic expansion dwarfs it.

I do this for a living, you post on message boards

I learned this in economics and understand the math behind it (I was also a math major) and you're parroting liberal politicians.

I'll give your opinion all the consideration it deserves

That is both arrogant and ignorant post. You certainly DID NOT "learn it in economics" because no economic course would teach such a falsehood.

It is ignorant because you will hardly find a single economist that would suggest that Bush's tax cuts, extended by Obama and now these new Trump tax cuts are self-financing economic free lunch. EVERYBODY loves downside-free economic policy. Why wouldn't I or anyone, left or right, want to pay less taxes?

On the contrary, you will find that the only disagreement is in the potency of the fractional dynamic effects.

Here, read up what sane, non-ignorant conservative tax-cut lovers sound like:

In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the same thing.

Greg Mankiw's Blog: On Charlatans and Cranks

So do you go to doctors and tell them they don't know medicine, lawyers do? Then tell them they're arrogant for thinking that doctors know more about medicine than lawyers? Give it a go, they'll laugh at you just like I am.

And I addressed "tax cuts" here, not the "Bush tax cuts." I have addressed those in other posts. Either ask me what I think of them or find those, but don't tell me what I think of them. Again, you calling anyone arrogant, classic

 

[kaz]

Overall, the economy performed far better under Obama than Reagan

I hope you have nice



because you sure don't have a brain ...

 

[kaz]

You are an idiot, which is WHY you are a democrat. You have no grasp at all of economics or business, You spew Marxist rhetoric whilst lacking even a semblance of what the foolishness you promote means.

First off gnat, nearly all corporations in the United States are small businesses. You are trained by your masters to attack business. Why do you think Soros and the international banking consortium puts so much time and money into leftist websites and agitators who incite half-wits like you to attack business?

Using rightwing talking points that deny reality is no better. Trump isn't cutting taxes for "small businesses". He's cutting taxes for businesses big enough to offshore their manufacturing. In hopes of them bring the jobs back, which they won't. They'll take the cheaper taxes and stay where they are.

WTF, how do you know that since he hasn't presented a plan yet? Jesus fing christ.

BTW, the best way to cut small business taxes is to lower the top individual tax rate. I believe he actually supported doing that, so you are seriously basing this on your own bigotry, Mrs. Mao

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Using rightwing talking points that deny reality is no better. Trump isn't cutting taxes for "small businesses". He's cutting taxes for businesses big enough to offshore their manufacturing. In hopes of them bring the jobs back, which they won't. They'll take the cheaper taxes and stay where they are.

Trump has proposed cutting corporate double-taxation to 15%. Given that most corporations ARE small businesses, despite the lies of the Soros owned party, then these cuts will indeed go to small business.

For those like Apple and GE who are big enough to Offshore, they already bribe the corrupt democrats and hence pay no taxes. The same net loss carry forward that the Soros minions HOWLED about Trump using in in play by GE and Apple - the leftist darling corporations.

The reality is that when you of the part attack corporations, it's Angelo's transmission service with 15 mechanics who you savage, not Apple or Amazon. Those mega-corps have bought the tax code long ago.

 

[Dragonlady]

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

According to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Trump’s latest proposals would cut taxes by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with 47% of all cuts in 2017 going to the top 1%.

The tax cuts that Trump is now proposing are smaller than the $9.5 trillion in cuts he floated last year, but are also more tilted in favor of the wealthy.

Under Trump’s new plan, every income group would still get tax cuts, but upper income households would receive the most relief, not only in dollars, but as a percentage of income.

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

...

Urban Brookings is a liberal think tank, moron

........and so is Forbes????

Even if it's true, which I doubt, the top 1% pay 40% of the taxes, so the cut isn't as disproportionate as it sounds. And the previous tax cuts, including W's, the top 1% got a proportionately lower tax cut than everyone else

Not nit picking but I think it's closer to 50% for the top 1%, so getting 47% of the cuts is fair.

Note to liberal nitwits: It's 47% of the proposed cuts, not a 47% reduction in what they're currently paying.

I was just talking about the income tax. You're referring more to total taxes since they bear even a bigger portion of other taxes (e.g., corporate taxes). Either way to look at it is fine. The point is that Democrats see 47% and hyperventilate when that's actually in line with what they pay and they've been shortchanged on all recent tax cuts on a percentage basis.

You realize since we don't want to single out the rich for vitriol, that means we love and worship them, right?

No, what it means is that the transfer of wealth from the working class and the middle class to the top 1% will continue, unabated. That 47% of people are now reliant on expensive government run programs to supplement their meager incomes, isn't enough for the oligarchs. This is why they haven't given a damn about working people. They have no more wealth to give. The middle class is bleeding. They elected Trump to stop this, not accelerate it.

 

[boedicca]

As the OP is an economic illiterate, this lesson is for people with functioning cognitive abilities:


Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics


This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh $7. The eighth $12. The ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.

But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.

But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works....

TAX CUTS - SIMPLE LESSON IN ECONOMICS

 

[Uncensored2008]

WTF, how do you know that since he hasn't presented a plan yet? Jesus fing christ.

BTW, the best way to cut small business taxes is to lower the top individual tax rate. I believe he actually supported doing that, so you are seriously basing this on your own bigotry, Mrs. Mao

The leftists here have never had a course in economics. They don't grasp the pass-through taxation of LLC's and LLP's.