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

[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

There is seriously something fucking wrong with you. We are talking about tax-cuts in the context of Bush did and what Trump proposes. OBVIOUSLY.

I give you explanation from highly respected CONSERVATIVE economist who was an economic adviser for Bush administration, and supported his tax cuts policies, just not for stupid counter-factual reasons you do.

And your response to me is that this guy doesn't understand economics???

Strawman, I said you don't, not he doesn't.

If that's what he said, his calculations are first year, I already addressed that. You have to look long term, it takes 2-3 years to overtake the cost.

Also, "tax cuts" and "Bush tax cuts" are not synonymous, I already addressed that too. W undercut a big chunk of his effectiveness by complicating the tax code while lowering it. For cuts to be fully effective, you need to simplify the code or people/businesses chase the incentives of the code rather than just growing their income/business.

This is why even if you're citing a real economist, you still need to understand what they are saying. Debating someone with a link you don't understand doesn't make you an expert in what you are debating

 

[kaz]

S Corps also. Yes, minor variations of each other. Ignorance is the oxygen of liberalism, it would die without it

Some states still have S Corps using pass through taxation, but Delaware and other business friendly states do not. With the rise of LLC's, there is not a lot of reason to incur the costs of an S corporation anymore. It is becoming anachronistic.

First, obviously this is a side issue, we agree on the point.

I don't know about that, I owned three S corps, though all were in North Carolina. I did a quick search and it said Delaware S Corps still pass through profits. I am not aware of any cost for an S corp that doesn't apply to LLCs. Actually, the reason I did an S Corp is that payroll taxes for the owner are more friendly while everything else is the same.

Are you thinking of a C corp? The whole purpose of an S Corp is to pass through profits. Why would a State have an S corp and a C corp if you don't pass through profits, wouldn't they be the same?

Yep, it is a side issue. But S corporations may be pass-through, or may not.

Per the IRS here are requirements for direct filing of income tax by S Corporations.

S Corporations

It isn't C corporations that make S corps unneeded, it is LLC's. I can find little reason to form and S corp. An LLC provides the limitation to liability, though it does restrict stock issuance.

I said it's a side issue to make clear I wasn't debating the point we were discussing, obviously I agreed with you on that.

The first sentence in your link: "S corporations are corporations that elect to pass corporate income, losses, deductions, and credits through to their shareholders for federal tax purposes."

S Corps and C Corps are completely different things. S Corps and LLCs are almost the same thing. But I'll answer your question:

"I can find little reason to form and S corp"

There is zero cost difference between setting up an S Corp and a LLC. Also, You can run an S Corp exactly like a LLC if you want to. So actually there is zero advantage to being an LLC over an S Corp.

Here is what you can do differently:

Let's say your corporation has $1M in revenue and your net profit for the year is $100K.

With an LLC, you have to take the full $100K income as W2 income

With an S Corp, you could pay yourself a "reasonable" salary, say 6% of income and let the rest pass through as investment earnings. That allows you to pay social security taxes on only $60K. You'd still have to declare the other $40K as income, but you wouldn't have to pay payroll taxes on it. That's what I meant by the one difference I know is you can get a benefit in payroll taxes.

Again, worked with my lawyer and accountant and set up three "S" Corps. Trust me, I did my homework on the tax implication of that

 

[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?

I will if it's as childish as what the Republicans were doing. I have no special love for the Dems.

I appreciate the attitude, but can you provide a better example of what the Republicans did that was "childish?" Your first example was they didn't vote for something Republicans always oppose, which is not childish and you'd never demand Democrats do. Give some examples of things they opposed because Democrats wanted to do it

 

[kaz]

Overall, the economy performed far better under Obama than Reagan

I hope you have nice



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

Look at the numbers, not what the debt bought. Reagan's Presidency was our next door neighbour building a big addition on his house, two new cars and a fur coat for his wife, but it was all on money borrowed from the Chinese.

It was the Democrats in Congress who pulled the plug on his Star Wars missile defense system.

I'm off to take my finished goods to the collective to exchange for tea and biscuits.

WTF, you think Republicans wanted the social spending that Tip and the Democrat Congress passed?

Maybe you need to buy a clue and come back

 

[buckeye45_73]

I love these reports, have any of these "experts" been right about anything?

WTF are you smoking?

You know we actually did this tax cutting thing before and have since collected record low revenues, which account for significant portion of our accumulated debt.

Show me the chart of fed govt revenue

I did, but you of course don't like the size of economy adjusted version that is the standard for serious comparison, It just doesn't fit your ridiculous free lunch myths that I paid less taxes while government collected more revenues.

You pointed that out to liberals while W was President, right?



I crack myself up ...

You are a moron. Tax revenue is totatl taxes, did they go up or down? Its not a difficult question.

 

[kaz]

I love these reports, have any of these "experts" been right about anything?

WTF are you smoking?

You know we actually did this tax cutting thing before and have since collected record low revenues, which account for significant portion of our accumulated debt.

Show me the chart of fed govt revenue

I did, but you of course don't like the size of economy adjusted version that is the standard for serious comparison, It just doesn't fit your ridiculous free lunch myths that I paid less taxes while government collected more revenues.

You pointed that out to liberals while W was President, right?



I crack myself up ...

You are a moron. Tax revenue is totatl taxes, did they go up or down? Its not a difficult question.

You are a moron. You quoted the wrong post. I am saying the same thing. Seriously, when you saw "kaz" you thought I was arguing for higher taxes?

It is a free lunch. Lower rates do create more revenue. Here's the trick and what I do criticize W for, he increased tax complexity, which reduces the benefit. But I sure am not arguing that higher tax rates generate more money, they clearly don't

 

[buckeye45_73]

That calculation doesn't count the economic expansion the tax cuts would create. Historically tax cuts do increase deficits in the short term (2-3 years), but then grow revenue from there on due to economic expansion

Dynamic effects are a small fraction (~20%) of first order revenue reduction. So instead of $10 Trillion you can argue it will be more like 8T and I'll let you do it too....as soon as you conservatives also start arguing that spending this deficit will suppress should be adjusted for dynamic effects too....which you will not, so I will not agree to such standard of accounting on revenues side.

Yes, I am a fiscal conservative. Once again you show liberals are all about money. It's the only measuring stick for you. Am I going to help you get other people's money or try to help keep you away. You're consumed with greed, and you constantly demonstrate that

My only thought about your comment is - WTF???

I'll try to dumb it down for you, though I may not be able to dumb it down all the way to you.

I'm socially more liberal than you are, I'm more small military than you are.

Yet you think I'm a "conservative." The only thing I'm more conservative than you is money. Yet that's the only thing you hear, your obsession with money driven by your greed. Getting your hands on other people's money is the only thing you measure me by because money is the only thing you really care about. The rest is just noise to you

Our exchange so far:

Kaz: Tax cuts have some dynamic feedback.
Anton: But they make for a small fraction of their static reduction to revenues.
Kaz: You are so fucking greedy!

WHAT. THE. FUCK is wrong with you Kaz?

So what you are saying is other factors effect tax revenue, not just the tax rate? Now we're getting somewhere a liberal who doewnt see everything in.a.vaccum....baby steps

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

Growth.... Bwahahaha!!! OMG, you just can't make this stuff up.

Yeah not everything happens.in a vaccum. Thats your problem not mine. Its dynamic and yes grwoth means more tax revenue. Its the reason raised taxes always fall on the middle class....the most people and money.

 

[buckeye45_73]

WTF are you smoking?

You know we actually did this tax cutting thing before and have since collected record low revenues, which account for significant portion of our accumulated debt.

Show me the chart of fed govt revenue

I did, but you of course don't like the size of economy adjusted version that is the standard for serious comparison, It just doesn't fit your ridiculous free lunch myths that I paid less taxes while government collected more revenues.

You pointed that out to liberals while W was President, right?



I crack myself up ...

You are a moron. Tax revenue is totatl taxes, did they go up or down? Its not a difficult question.

You are a moron. You quoted the wrong post. I am saying the same thing. Seriously, when you saw "kaz" you thought I was arguing for higher taxes?

It is a free lunch. Lower rates do create more revenue. Here's the trick and what I do criticize W for, he increased tax complexity, which reduces the benefit. But I sure am not arguing that higher tax rates generate more money, they clearly don't

I was quoting anton...hes an idiot.

 

[Dragonlady]

You think I'm cut and spend? Wow, you're a bigger idiot than I thought. Yes, Toots, I'm a big government libertarian. Wow, can you find your ass with both hands and a map?

I'm all cut and cut, baby ..

I'm not talking about YOU. Libertarians are fools and dreamers. You're not even a flea on an elephant's ass. We're talking about Trump.

 

[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.

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?

I will if it's as childish as what the Republicans were doing. I have no special love for the Dems.

I appreciate the attitude, but can you provide a better example of what the Republicans did that was "childish?" Your first example was they didn't vote for something Republicans always oppose, which is not childish and you'd never demand Democrats do. Give some examples of things they opposed because Democrats wanted to do it

There are a number of examples. The worst two I can think of off the top of my head were the debt ceiling brinksmanship and the refusal to even consider any of the medicare-for-all proposals that had been mandated when Obama was elected. Even when the Dems had a super majority, the Republicans were doing everything they could to throw a wrench. The tax increases came quite a bit later and were the last straw.

 

[Dragonlady]

Then what business is this of yours?

I'm watching your country implode with hate, bigotry, and an absolute worship of the wealth which I fail to fathom.

We saw it, which is why we turned the corrupt Clinton Crime Family out.

My ideas are my own, as a student of history, and of great men.

Your ideas, or more properly your fantasies, are an amalgamation of the ideas of Karl Marx, Joseph Staling, Mao, and Pol Pot.

I don't view these as "great" men.

If this were Roman Times, you've just elected Caligula as Emperor. The Senate thought they could control him too.

If so, the Hillary was Nero.

I've been watching Trump since the 1980's, just because he was so bizarre, and such a con man. Especially with the casino bankruptcies.

Watching him on 60 Minutes was scary. He had the look of a man who had no intention of winning and holy fuck now what do I do. I am so glad I do not live in the US at this moment in history.

What you don't grasp is that America did not vote FOR Trump, but against the corruption of the democratic - socialist party.

As you said, they do nothing other than foment racism, bigotry, and hatred.. We are tired of it. It is not a crime to be white, it is not a crime to be a Christian, it is not a crime to be a man. You are free to do as you please, but you have no right to force me to celebrate your choices or even agree with them.

America told you thugs to fuck off.

When the US sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold. Fortunately, our economy was insultated from the worst of the last recession because our LIBERAL Finance Minister refused to give in to the bankers' demand that he de-regulate them. Not one Canadian bank went under, and none required bail-outs.

The United States has been a socialist country ever since it instituted welfare and social security. Medicare and Medicaid cemented that status.

Good luck dismantling it all. Why do you think Argentina ended up in the mess it's in.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Don't ruin his illusions. He's living for the time when Trump will devastate our tax base so that jobs can come raining down from the heavens.

Do you ever wish you had stuck it out and finished 2nd grade? Think of how much better your life would be with all the extra education that you missed.....

 

[nat4900]

I will if it's as childish as what the Republicans were doing. I have no special love for the Dems.

Here is a perfect example:

Senate Republicans in 2012 blocked the No.1 item on the president's congressional "to-do-list," refusing to allow a vote on a bill that would give tax breaks for companies that "in-source" jobs to the U.S. from overseas while eliminating tax deductions for companies that move jobs abroad.

The bill fell four votes short of the 60 needed to bring it to debate, with 42 voting against it. Four GOP senators -- Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Dean Heller of Nevada -- voted in favor of the bill.

 

[JoeNormal]

[
Don't ruin his illusions. He's living for the time when Trump will devastate our tax base so that jobs can come raining down from the heavens.

Do you ever wish you had stuck it out and finished 2nd grade? Think of how much better your life would be with all the extra education that you missed.....

I'm sure I have more education than you. Would you like to explain how Trump's tax cuts will bring back jobs to America?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Look at the numbers, not what the debt bought. Reagan's Presidency was our next door neighbour building a big addition on his house, two new cars and a fur coat for his wife, but it was all on money borrowed from the Chinese.

It was the Democrats in Congress who pulled the plug on his Star Wars missile defense system.

I'm off to take my finished goods to the collective to exchange for tea and biscuits.

Wait, so you're saying REAGAN was using China to fund the national debt?

Tell you what retard, we'll ignore that bit of stupidity and deal instead with your bullshit about Reagan;

{
Here, first, are the overall and primary budget balances for the federal government since 1960. The primary budget balance is simply the balance excluding interest payments — that is, current revenue minus . non-interest expenditure. The balances are shown in percent of GDP, with surpluses as positive values and deficits as negative. The vertical black lines are drawn at calendar years 1981 and 1990, marking the last pre-Reagan and first post-Reagan budgets.

The black line shows the familiar story. The federal government ran small budget deficits through the 1960s and 1970s, averaging a bit more than 0.5 percent of GDP. Then during the 1980s the deficits ballooned, to close to 5 percent of GDP during Reagan’s eight years — comparable to the highest value ever reached in the previous decades. After a brief period of renewed deficits under Bush in the early 1990s, the budget moved to surplus under Clinton in the later 1990s, back to moderate deficits under George W. Bush in the 2000s, and then to very large deficits in the Great Recession.

The red line, showing the primary deficit, mostly behaves similarly to the black one — but not in the 1980s. True, the primary balance shows a large deficit in 1984, but there is no sustained movement toward deficit. While the overall deficit was about 4.5 points higher under Reagan compared with the average of the 1960s and 1970s, the primary deficit was only 1.4 points higher. So over two-thirds of the increase in deficits was higher interest spending. For that, we can blame Paul Volcker (a Carter appointee), not Ronald Reagan.}
The Myth of Reagan’s Debt | J. W. Mason

Now you're a dumb guy, and a democrat, so none of this will make sense to you, but the lurkers will grasp it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
I'm sure I have more education than you.

I'm sure you have less education than my dog.

Would you like to explain how Trump's tax cuts will bring back jobs to America?

Would you like to explain the exact details of the tax cuts Trump has put in place? I really would like to see the intricate details....

 

[JoeNormal]

[
I'm sure I have more education than you.

I'm sure you have less education than my dog.

Would you like to explain how Trump's tax cuts will bring back jobs to America?

Would you like to explain the exact details of the tax cuts Trump has put in place? I really would like to see the intricate details....

Trump doesn't deal with intricate details. That's not how he rolls. He flings shit against the wall to see what will stick. At this point, it's enough to know that he's a plutocrat who evidence suggests hasn't paid taxes in 20 years and who would like to reduce taxes not for any benefit for average Americans but as a favor to the already wealthy.

Now, tell us in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, how that's going to improve the jobs outlook here.

 

[nat4900]

Trump doesn't deal with intricate details. That's not how he rolls. He flings shit against the wall to see what will stick.

the very definition of demagoguery is to simply tell folks what they WANT to hear, regardless if those "policies" have any basis in reality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Trump doesn't deal with intricate details.

Ah, so you're just lying - democrat.

That's not how he rolls. He flings shit against the wall to see what will stick. At this point, it's enough to know that he's a plutocrat who evidence suggests hasn't paid taxes in 20 years and who would like to reduce taxes not for any benefit for average Americans but as a favor to the already wealthy.

Now, tell us how in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, how that's going to improve the jobs outlook here.

At this point it's enough to know that you're a demagogue spewing slander and libel against political enemies with utterly nothing to base your idiocy on.

You do this because your masters have programmed you to be OUTRAGED. OUTRAGED I TELLS YA, that the crook in the hip pocket of Wall Street, Hillary Clinton, didn't win the election for the ruling 1% elite.