tax bill

[Bubba]

Business tax rates needed to come down, along with other factors that kept multinationals from bringing overseas earnings and cash back to the US. Expensing capital investment should spur capital investment although I'm not sure 100% in year one is necessary. If these changes are at least partially offset by reducing other loopholes, that's all good.

Capping mortgage interest isn't a bad idea. Capping SALT deductibility isn't a bad idea, although I question the $10K limit. Doubling the personal exemption to $24K for couples will offset that problem for many middle class couples but not those who live in major metropolitan areas. Then again, if the individual tax rate comes down for those same people, it may not be as painful as some project.

I am not a fan of increasing deficits by the projected $1.5 trillion over 10 years and anyone who has argued for balanced budgets and voted for this bill shows themselves as the crass hypocrites we know politicians to be. (No surprise there.)

[madhatter]

Couple of things.

First, just because a couple of large corporations promised some things and claimed it was because of this tax break

1) ...does not mean that the overall tax bill will have a large macroeconomic impact. A few hundred thousand people with an extra $1,000 in their pockets it's 2 billion dollars just from the ATT bonuses, worst case projected scenario for debt increase is 1-1.5 billion per year...that debt is not a certainty either...will not make a hill of beans worth of difference in a multi muti trillion dollar economy with 300 million people in it.it's not going to have a negative effect...

2) ...does not mean that the spending they promised was a) actually due to this tax bill and b) actually going to happen. I believe CEOs of major corporations about the same extent that I believe politicians.

Second, I cited to a wikipedia article that contained loads of empirical data about cutting taxes and the resultant lack of economic growth. Meaning, governments have actually tried this before and it hasn't worked in many cases. Cutting taxes to increase growth only works in certain circumstances, and I don't think we are in those. We are already in a period of growth, and taxes are already in the area where they are not regressive. In Reagan's era, the highest tax bracket was more than twice what we have today, and the country was experiencing stagflation. That's why Reaganomics (arguably) worked. We are not in the same situation today.

the tax bill also coincides with massive reductions in restrictive regulations that have hampered the economy...hard to really see where any of this is anythign close to the disaster that schumer and pelosi pretend it is...

bottom line: when people see an increase in their paychecks that is going to feel like a raise...they are never even remotely going to feel or consider the projected 10 yr debt/deficit increase....

[madhatter]

Business tax rates needed to come down, along with other factors that kept multinationals from bringing overseas earnings and cash back to the US. Expensing capital investment should spur capital investment although I'm not sure 100% in year one is necessary. If these changes are at least partially offset by reducing other loopholes, that's all good.

Capping mortgage interest isn't a bad idea. Capping SALT deductibility isn't a bad idea, although I question the $10K limit. how many poor/middle class/ sub100k households are going to be affected by that?Doubling the personal exemption to $24K for couples will offset that problem for many middle class couples but not those who live in major metropolitan areas. Then again, if the individual tax rate comes down for those same people, it may not be as painful as some project.

I am not a fan of increasing deficits by the projected $1.5 trillion over 10 yearsthat's 1.5 billion per year, the equivalent rounding error and by no means guaranteed...there could always be spending cuts to offset that ( not that there ever will be).... and anyone who has argued for balanced budgets and voted for this bill shows themselves as the crass hypocrites we know politicians to be. (No surprise there.)

also @ 13 million people ( mostly lower income) will no longer be forced to buy insurance they don't want or face a penalty....they still can buy it if they WANT to...

[madhatter]

and all of this is better than any D plan to raise taxes...

[madhatter]

maybe coydog can stop over here w some of that gruber maff to explain reality away...

[Bubba]

Couple of things.

First, just because a couple of large corporations promised some things and claimed it was because of this tax break

1) ...does not mean that the overall tax bill will have a large macroeconomic impact. A few hundred thousand people with an extra $1,000 in their pockets it's 2 billion dollars just from the ATT bonuses, worst case projected scenario for debt increase is 1-1.5 billion per year...that debt is not a certainty either...will not make a hill of beans worth of difference in a multi muti trillion dollar economy with 300 million people in it.it's not going to have a negative effect...

2) ...does not mean that the spending they promised was a) actually due to this tax bill and b) actually going to happen. I believe CEOs of major corporations about the same extent that I believe politicians.

Second, I cited to a wikipedia article that contained loads of empirical data about cutting taxes and the resultant lack of economic growth. Meaning, governments have actually tried this before and it hasn't worked in many cases. Cutting taxes to increase growth only works in certain circumstances, and I don't think we are in those. We are already in a period of growth, and taxes are already in the area where they are not regressive. In Reagan's era, the highest tax bracket was more than twice what we have today, and the country was experiencing stagflation. That's why Reaganomics (arguably) worked. We are not in the same situation today.

the tax bill also coincides with massive reductions in restrictive regulations that have hampered the economy...hard to really see where any of this is anythign close to the disaster that schumer and pelosi pretend it is...

bottom line: when people see an increase in their paychecks that is going to feel like a raise...they are never even remotely going to feel or consider the projected 10 yr debt/deficit increase....

Please name several such regulatory moves (beyond Keystone XL) and please don't regurgitate the administration's recent claim of about 1,000 regulations killed as that's provably bogus. (See current Business Week.) I am no fan of regulation and welcome almost any move to reduce regulations that hamper the economy unless there is real gain elsewhere, but let's not overstate what this administration has actually done.

[Bubba]

Business tax rates needed to come down, along with other factors that kept multinationals from bringing overseas earnings and cash back to the US. Expensing capital investment should spur capital investment although I'm not sure 100% in year one is necessary. If these changes are at least partially offset by reducing other loopholes, that's all good.

Capping mortgage interest isn't a bad idea. Capping SALT deductibility isn't a bad idea, although I question the $10K limit. how many poor/middle class/ sub100k households are going to be affected by that?Doubling the personal exemption to $24K for couples will offset that problem for many middle class couples but not those who live in major metropolitan areas. Then again, if the individual tax rate comes down for those same people, it may not be as painful as some project.

I am not a fan of increasing deficits by the projected $1.5 trillion over 10 yearsthat's 1.5 billion per year, the equivalent rounding error and by no means guaranteed...there could always be spending cuts to offset that ( not that there ever will be).... and anyone who has argued for balanced budgets and voted for this bill shows themselves as the crass hypocrites we know politicians to be. (No surprise there.)

also @ 13 million people ( mostly lower income) will no longer be forced to buy insurance they don't want or face a penalty....they still can buy it if they WANT to...

Better check your arithmetic on that annual budget impact.

[Kpdemello]

bottom line: when people see an increase in their paychecks that is going to feel like a raise...they are never even remotely going to feel or consider the projected 10 yr debt/deficit increase....

This is the problem with most political policy in a nutshell. People see a short term, small benefit but they neglect the huge, looming, long term consequence.

Will this tax bill be some kind of disaster that hurts the economy? No, and I never said it would. But that doesn't mean it's not a stupid, short-sighted policy that's going to cause damage down the road.

Business tax rates needed to come down, along with other factors that kept multinationals from bringing overseas earnings and cash back to the US. Expensing capital investment should spur capital investment although I'm not sure 100% in year one is necessary. If these changes are at least partially offset by reducing other loopholes, that's all good.

The competitive advantage of our business tax rates versus overseas is an interesting question that I think bears scrutiny. I'm not sure the answer is a blanket decrease in U.S. business tax rates, but I'm open to argument on that one.

But why in the world does it make sense to cut the top income tax bracket? How does that even make sense when it isn't all that high to begin with? If anything, it might make some sense to increase the top income tax bracket to help offset corporate tax cuts.

[madhatter]

Business tax rates needed to come down, along with other factors that kept multinationals from bringing overseas earnings and cash back to the US. Expensing capital investment should spur capital investment although I'm not sure 100% in year one is necessary. If these changes are at least partially offset by reducing other loopholes, that's all good.

Capping mortgage interest isn't a bad idea. Capping SALT deductibility isn't a bad idea, although I question the $10K limit. how many poor/middle class/ sub100k households are going to be affected by that?Doubling the personal exemption to $24K for couples will offset that problem for many middle class couples but not those who live in major metropolitan areas. Then again, if the individual tax rate comes down for those same people, it may not be as painful as some project.

I am not a fan of increasing deficits by the projected $1.5 trillion over 10 yearsthat's 1.5 billion per year, the equivalent rounding error and by no means guaranteed...there could always be spending cuts to offset that ( not that there ever will be).... and anyone who has argued for balanced budgets and voted for this bill shows themselves as the crass hypocrites we know politicians to be. (No surprise there.)

also @ 13 million people ( mostly lower income) will no longer be forced to buy insurance they don't want or face a penalty....they still can buy it if they WANT to...

Better check your arithmetic on that annual budget impact.

1.5 trillion / 10 =
one hundred fifty billion

sorry, let me know when the avg 50k household gives a crap...

[Kpdemello]

sorry, let me know when the avg 50k household gives a crap...

Probably won't happen until 30 years from now when that avg 50k household's children reach age 65 and have to work another 10 years before social security and medicare kick in because Congress had no choice but to continue to increase the age of eligibility because the increasing national debt interest payments have consumed more and more of the budget.

By the way, why should the average 50k household be in favor of millionaires and billionaires getting massive tax breaks?

[Mister Moose]

sorry, let me know when the avg 50k household gives a crap...

Probably won't happen until 30 years from now when that avg 50k household's children reach age 65 and have to work another 10 years before social security and medicare kick in because Congress had no choice but to continue to increase the age of eligibility because the increasing national debt interest payments have consumed more and more of the budget.

By the way, why should the average 50k household be in favor of millionaires and billionaires getting massive tax breaks?

The wealthiest 1% pay 40% of the federal taxes. Forty percent. Where in the world can you ever get the notion that isn't excessive? The question should be why are you paying so little of the expenses for the majority of the population that YOU voted in? Perhaps if you paid your "fair share" then you'd vote for less spending of the other guys money.

We're living longer, retirement and Social Security age should be moved up.

[madhatter]

sorry, let me know when the avg 50k household gives a crap...

Probably won't happen until 30 years from now I'll be in my 80'swhen that avg 50k household's children reach age 65 when those kids reach age 65 the parents will likely be dead...and have to work another 10 years before social security and medicare kick perhaps one should make alternative plans that over those 30 years that don't rely on the gov for retirement sustenance...plenty of time...in because Congress had no choice but to continue to increase the age of eligibility because the increasing national debt interest payments have consumed more and more of the budget.

By the way, why should the average 50k household be in favor of millionaires and billionaires getting massive define massive in real terms...tax breaks?

why should they care? its not their money...

[madhatter]

sorry, let me know when the avg 50k household gives a crap...

Probably won't happen until 30 years from now when that avg 50k household's children reach age 65 and have to work another 10 years before social security and medicare kick in because Congress had no choice but to continue to increase the age of eligibility because the increasing national debt interest payments have consumed more and more of the budget.

By the way, why should the average 50k household be in favor of millionaires and billionaires getting massive tax breaks?

The wealthiest 1% pay 40% of the federal taxes. being massive consumers they also pay a lot of other taxes as well...Forty percent. Where in the world can you ever get the notion that isn't excessive? The question should be why are you paying so little of the expenses for the majority of the population that YOU voted in? Perhaps if you paid your "fair share" then you'd vote for less spending of the other guys money.

We're living longer, retirement and Social Security age should be moved up.

[Kpdemello]

The wealthiest 1% pay 40% of the federal taxes. Forty percent.

I don't see this as a problem, and I'm not sure why you do. I don't see many 1% ers suffering overmuch from being overtaxed as they fly around in their private jets and play on their private yacts. The wealthiest 1% in the US enjoy a standard of living unmatched in history, and lead lives that most of us can only dream about. Isn't it fair that people who have benefited so disproportionately in our system pay that much more to support the system?

Wait, are you a 1%er? No? Then what is your issue exactly?

[Kpdemello]

sorry, let me know when the avg 50k household gives a crap...

Probably won't happen until 30 years from now I'll be in my 80'swhen that avg 50k household's children reach age 65 when those kids reach age 65 the parents will likely be dead...and have to work another 10 years before social security and medicare kick perhaps one should make alternative plans that over those 30 years that don't rely on the gov for retirement sustenance...plenty of time...in because Congress had no choice but to continue to increase the age of eligibility because the increasing national debt interest payments have consumed more and more of the budget.

By the way, why should the average 50k household be in favor of millionaires and billionaires getting massive define massive in real terms...tax breaks?

why should they care? its not their money...

Oh okay. So these people who are paying FICA and Medicare taxes should just keep paying for you and your generation while they don't get the same benefits when they retire, just so we can give billionaires tax breaks today? Sure, that makes lots of sense.