1. Extremely doubtful that this would lead to 3% growth rate. On what theory? Corporations would have more money. What are they going to do with it? The DOW has tripled in value since 2009. So where's all that money going? Investment? Hiring workers? Why would you think Corporations having more money are going to do anything more than stock buybacks, paying executives more money, or giving dividends to wealthy shareholders? Where is the logic that it will boost the economy from 1.5 to 3% growth? If we're going to get economic growth we need to boost productivity or boost consumer demand. A corporate tax cut will not do either of these two things. At least if you cut middle-income taxes you might get more consumer demand, leading to higher growth. This is just a giveaway to the wealthy, ultimately.
This article was done before we had the full plan but the outlines were pretty clear so it's still on point.
"But even those examples of strong economic growth following tax tweaks come with some caveats. The U.S. entered recessions in 1969 and 1990, so even if they helped spur growth in the short-term, the tax overhauls didn't exactly guard against an economic slowdown, either. And given that the U.S. is already more than eight years into an economic recovery, there's some concern that rocking the boat with tax reform at this point would ultimately send the stock market and the economy into dangerous territory.
"You have to come back to the maxim that economic recoveries don’t die of old age. But like all of us, they don’t walk as fast as they used to," says Mark Hamrick, a senior economic analyst at Bankrate.com. "What you don't want to do is exacerbate the sustainability of the [economic] expansion by injecting an elderly athlete with adrenaline, which causes him to have a heart attack."
Among more independent analysts like Hamrick, however, the response has been more muted. Michael Gapen, a managing director and chief U.S. economist at Barclays Investment Bank, speculated in an interview Thursday with CNBC that the GOP-led reform effort "can help the supply-side [and businesses] a bit."
But he cautioned that "getting things up to 3 percent" annual economic growth would be "very difficult." The proposed tax overhaul may give the economy a jolt, but reaching the Trump administration's growth target could be a steep task.
"I mean, potential [annual economic] growth right now, we all estimate it kind of around 1.5 [percent] to 1.7 [percent], so you're talking about a doubling of potential growth," he said. "You're talking about needing to get productivity back to where we were in the 1990s for a sustained period of time. I think that's very low probability at this point."
More likely in his mind, Gapen said, would be a situation in which the tax overhaul generates "a four to five quarter impulse to growth, and then it fades."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews ... ontext=amp
Politico examined cutting the history of cutting top tax rates and found "changing the top income tax rate does not have a predictable effect on economic growth."
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2 ... t-wealthy/
2. 12% repatriation. First, is that cash really overseas? Secondly, last time we did that the money was just used to increase stock prices. See #1. You know, if you just taxed corporations on their world-wide profits...you wouldn't have this recurring issue.
3. No idea.
4. Highest rate would go down for those making $400,00 to 1 million.
5. Doesn't sound that unreasonable but I don't really buy into the tax cuts elsewhere so no need to do it. Also, upper middle-class people making $200,000 who buy a 1 million dollar home in LA to get into a good school district aren't rich so that hurts them. Why should they sacrifice so that the very wealthy benefit?
6. I don't buy lowering estate taxes at all. People should have to make it on their own merits.
7. This hurts lower and mide-income people which we off-set by giving more money to the rich. Makes it harder to afford an education, which is the vehicle of advancement.
8. This is just horrible. Why should someone who owns a business pay less tax than someone who makes a salary? Totally unfair. And will be endlessly manipulated. And according to Ricky....already is. Will just get worse.
9. Cherry on top.
All in all...hand-out to the rich, sticks it to people living in liberal states like New York, California, Pennsylvania, etc who won't get deductions on state and local taxes and can't deduct full amount of loans for living in high-priced housing markets. Increases the deficit, making it hard for government to spend money on infrastructure, education, investment. Puts more pressure to cut Medicaid and Medicare at some point. For what? What's not to hate?
This article was done before we had the full plan but the outlines were pretty clear so it's still on point.
"But even those examples of strong economic growth following tax tweaks come with some caveats. The U.S. entered recessions in 1969 and 1990, so even if they helped spur growth in the short-term, the tax overhauls didn't exactly guard against an economic slowdown, either. And given that the U.S. is already more than eight years into an economic recovery, there's some concern that rocking the boat with tax reform at this point would ultimately send the stock market and the economy into dangerous territory.
"You have to come back to the maxim that economic recoveries don’t die of old age. But like all of us, they don’t walk as fast as they used to," says Mark Hamrick, a senior economic analyst at Bankrate.com. "What you don't want to do is exacerbate the sustainability of the [economic] expansion by injecting an elderly athlete with adrenaline, which causes him to have a heart attack."
Among more independent analysts like Hamrick, however, the response has been more muted. Michael Gapen, a managing director and chief U.S. economist at Barclays Investment Bank, speculated in an interview Thursday with CNBC that the GOP-led reform effort "can help the supply-side [and businesses] a bit."
But he cautioned that "getting things up to 3 percent" annual economic growth would be "very difficult." The proposed tax overhaul may give the economy a jolt, but reaching the Trump administration's growth target could be a steep task.
"I mean, potential [annual economic] growth right now, we all estimate it kind of around 1.5 [percent] to 1.7 [percent], so you're talking about a doubling of potential growth," he said. "You're talking about needing to get productivity back to where we were in the 1990s for a sustained period of time. I think that's very low probability at this point."
More likely in his mind, Gapen said, would be a situation in which the tax overhaul generates "a four to five quarter impulse to growth, and then it fades."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews ... ontext=amp
Politico examined cutting the history of cutting top tax rates and found "changing the top income tax rate does not have a predictable effect on economic growth."
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2 ... t-wealthy/
2. 12% repatriation. First, is that cash really overseas? Secondly, last time we did that the money was just used to increase stock prices. See #1. You know, if you just taxed corporations on their world-wide profits...you wouldn't have this recurring issue.
3. No idea.
4. Highest rate would go down for those making $400,00 to 1 million.
5. Doesn't sound that unreasonable but I don't really buy into the tax cuts elsewhere so no need to do it. Also, upper middle-class people making $200,000 who buy a 1 million dollar home in LA to get into a good school district aren't rich so that hurts them. Why should they sacrifice so that the very wealthy benefit?
6. I don't buy lowering estate taxes at all. People should have to make it on their own merits.
7. This hurts lower and mide-income people which we off-set by giving more money to the rich. Makes it harder to afford an education, which is the vehicle of advancement.
8. This is just horrible. Why should someone who owns a business pay less tax than someone who makes a salary? Totally unfair. And will be endlessly manipulated. And according to Ricky....already is. Will just get worse.
9. Cherry on top.
All in all...hand-out to the rich, sticks it to people living in liberal states like New York, California, Pennsylvania, etc who won't get deductions on state and local taxes and can't deduct full amount of loans for living in high-priced housing markets. Increases the deficit, making it hard for government to spend money on infrastructure, education, investment. Puts more pressure to cut Medicaid and Medicare at some point. For what? What's not to hate?