I suspect that 250 billion raised...will be more like 25 billion. Again, we do not know how much of that money is actually overseas due to accounting gimmicks. If you make it 0% then they will forget about the accounting gimmicks.

Well, the tax cuts that caused those deficits were from Repubican presidents. No Democratic president would have done them. The fact that a Republican president was able to get some Democretic support for these tax cuts does not change that these were tax cuts from Republican presidents supported by the Republicans in Congress. Republicans own those tax cuts. And they own our deficits. Without Republican policies since 1980 we would likely have a modest deficit. The deficits we have are the result of unfunded tax cuts by Republican presidents. Which Trump is going to do again...

freeman3 wrote:Without Republican policies since 1980 we would likely have a modest deficit. The deficits we have are the result of unfunded tax cuts by Republican presidents. Which Trump is going to do again...

When was the last time a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress cut spending?

On the other hand, of the largest entitlement programs, how many were created by GOP Presidents?

Spend.

Tax.

Spend.

Tax.

We need a "small government" party to restrain the spending and scope of the Federal government.

Or, we need a Convention of States to restrain the Federal government since neither party seems capable.

Here's a chart that not only have Republican presidents been the reponsible for our deficits by having unfunded tax cuts...they have also been the big spenders!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... obama/amp/
https://mises.org/blog/federal-spending ... nder-obama

Small government...right.

I see why you think that the deficits will increase, but do you think the taxes need to increase? If budget is reduced, and taxes are staying the same, what would happen to the deficit? I would think it would decrease.

Obviously neither party is going to reduce the budget, I get that, but what would happen, and why do you believe taxes need to be increased?

freeman3 wrote:Here's a chart that not only have Republican presidents been the reponsible for our deficits by having unfunded tax cuts...they have also been the big spenders!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... obama/amp/
https://mises.org/blog/federal-spending ... nder-obama

Small government...right.

You ain't arguing with me . . . (emphasis added)

Doctor Fate wrote:We need a "small government" party to restrain the spending and scope of the Federal government.

Or, we need a Convention of States to restrain the Federal government since neither party seems capable.

Some of that Bush II spending is political bilge--they assign it to GWB, but it was Obama all the way.

Main point: our government spends too much money. Period.

fate

Some of that Bush II spending is political bilge--they assign it to GWB, but it was Obama all the way

because Obama had a time machine?

rickyp wrote:fate

Some of that Bush II spending is political bilge--they assign it to GWB, but it was Obama all the way

because Obama had a time machine?

Nope, he used budget gimmicks to blame GWB for more of 2009 spending than is really his fault.

fate

Nope, he used budget gimmicks to blame GWB for more of 2009 spending than is really his fault

BS.
Just the opposite.

FEB. 19, 2009
WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.
The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.
But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy from using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax

.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/po ... udget.html

rickyp wrote:fate

Nope, he used budget gimmicks to blame GWB for more of 2009 spending than is really his fault

BS.
Just the opposite.

FEB. 19, 2009
WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.
The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.
But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy from using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax

.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/po ... udget.html

Obama signed a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year that gets pinned to Bush. So, put that in your pot and smoke it.

Maybe both are true? Bush spending that would have "hung over" was included, and Obama spending was brought i

Let's face it, bailing out banks and a surge in Iraq didn't come for free.

danivon

Let's face it, bailing out banks and a surge in Iraq didn't come for free

No.

But pretending that somehow this is factual is ridiculous.

Obama signed a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year that gets pinned to Bush.

The reason's that the omnibus spending bill was required was largely pinned on the 8 years of the Bush administration was because his administration was largely responsible for the conditions that lead to the financial melt down. . But, in any reasonable analysis, blame also apportions to Clinton's administration and to some degree every President since Reagan that introduced policies that helped create the elements that contributed to the financial meltdown. In fact Reagan had already had the savings and loans crisis which should have been a warning to anyone considering the deregulation of financial institutes - but wasn't.
Bush finagled the budget to hide spending .That's a fact.
Obama followed ordinary accounting rules that say, when you spend money you account for that spending in the budget.

rickyp wrote:Obama followed ordinary accounting rules that say, when you spend money you account for that spending in the budget.

. . . except for blaming Bush, which he did about nearly everything.

Now that we actually have a tax plan, I wanted to break it down and get reactions to it. It would be helpful if we use this numbering system so that the conversation is somewhat coherent.
1. Dropping the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%. The US has the highest marginal corporate tax rate in the developed world, and capital can move very easily to other borders. Obama wanted to do this as well but couldn't get to an agreement. This will have huge economic benefits for the US that may lead us to 3% growth rates through the next several years.

2. Corporate simplification on international taxation, including a 12% repatriation rate for cash parked overseas. 12% is fairly high -- it's certainly higher than the 6% used by Bush. Again, this is a strong positive creating win-wins for companies, the US government, employees, and shareholders.

3. Other corporate simplification / changes. Preventions on over deduction on interest expense ... getting rid of special deductions for manufacturers (that are very complex). Overall these are good changes.

4. Simplification of individual tax rates. The brackets have been improved for low income tax payers, and also for middle income tax payers. They kept the same top rate so not a sop to the rich in spite of what the media is saying.

5. Retention of $10,000 worth of property tax deduction; elimination of interest expense for loans for homes in excess of $500,000. In other words, middle income people retain these deductions but upper middle home owners lose their deductions. This seems reasonable to me. It will hurt the up scale housing market, but that the problem with specialized provisions in the tax code. There are always losers when you try to get rid of them.

6. Getting rid of the estate tax, although slowly. My own view is that this is an unnecessary tax giveaway to the wealthy. I would have preferred lower rates that would benefit the economy, or other changes (see below).

7. Getting rid of exemptions and various deductions including medical expense, student loan interest, state income taxes, alimony, etc. The tradeoff is a higher standard deductions and higher child tax credits. This does lead to major simplification, although there will be certain people who are disadvantaged as a result (those with high student loan interest or high medical expenses, big homes, or very blue states.) I would have preferred we retained the estate tax and made this part more generous to low and moderate income people.

8. Pass through business income taxed at 25%. Lowering the corporate tax rate to 20% necessitates other changes, but I need to understand this better.. In theory it could be good for small businesses.

9. Increase in the federal deficit. I do think this is important, but not more important than the advantage of #s 1 and 2 above. Certainly I would prefer a lower deficit and retaining the estate tax.

Even though I don't agree with all of the changes (who does?) , overall, as a result of the changes in #s 1-3, coupled with regulatory changes that have been moving forward, the US economy should grow by over 3% per year for the next several years. For this reason, the Republicans will win the 2020 presidential race.

rayjay

8. Pass through business income taxed at 25%. Lowering the corporate tax rate to 20% necessitates other changes, but I need to understand this better.. In theory it could be good for small businesses

The share of business activity represented by flow-through entities has been rising since the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Excluding sole proprietorships (which receive just 4 percent of total business revenue), more than 80 percent of businesses were organized as flow-through entities in 2012—up from 49 percent in 1985 (figure 1). During that same period the share of business receipts going to flow-through entities increased from 9 percent to 36 percent (figure 2). Recent research using IRS tax data found that fully half of all business profits are earned by pass-through entities, and that the average federal income tax rate paid is 19 percent (Cooper et al. 2015).

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing ... they-taxed

1. Dropping the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%. Mostly good. The marginal rate is very high (I think Japan is slightly higher though). The average effective rate is much lower, but there is an extremely high standard deviation, where some pay none and others pay retail. If this is largely revenue neutral and we see every corp paying the same rate, then, bully!

2. Corporate simplification on international taxation, including a 12% repatriation rate for cash parked overseas. Makes sense. Not a give away, but not crazy high.

3. Other corporate simplification / changes. This is necessary for 1 to be meaningful (and largely revenue neutral). I hope it sticks! I don't believe that even if it's not revenue neutral that this change will lead to 3% a year growth through 2020. I don't see how that's possible without a pretty massive increase in productivity or immigration, since we're already at full employment and the labor force is not effectively growing. From where would that growth come?

4. Simplification of individual tax rates. Meh. This really isn't that complicated. Not bad, but just a PR move.

5. Retention of $10,000 worth of property tax deduction; elimination of interest expense for loans for homes in excess of $500,000. I'd like to see all the interest expense go, but maybe this is a first step?

6. Getting rid of the estate tax, although slowly. I hate this change, bad for the country.

7. Getting rid of exemptions and various deductions including medical expense, student loan interest, state income taxes, alimony, etc. Everyone gets a bigger standard deduction, but people who really need it, like those who have a lot of student loan debt or medical expenses, get the same as everyone else. I get why this is not a bad thing, but there will certainly be losers . Not sure I have a better solution though. Perhaps this should be phased in, though.

8. Pass through business income taxed at 25%. Yep.

9. Increase in the federal deficit. Don't you remember? Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter! More seriously, this is a problem, but maybe if we re-prioritize our military outlook this problem will resolve itself? I know, I'm dreaming.

I definitely don't see this as growth inducing like RJ does, but it does have the potential to be more fair, which when we're talking about Trump, doesn't seem possible.