Since I love to play requests...
"But, whatever, now it's time to focus on the new, awful GOP tax plan. Which, as constituted today per their own document, would actually raise taxes on working-class families with children while massively cutting taxes for corporations and people like Donald Trump." Sean
"...and adding Trillions to the National Debt. As we all know, adding to the National Debt is terrible, awful, and ruinous when the Democrats do it, so it will be nice to see the Republicans, in denouncing this plan, be consistent for once." Moose
CNN Tax Reform
FOX Trump Sells Tax Plan
VOX Tax Plan
NPR Tax Reform
"But, whatever, now it's time to focus on the new, awful GOP tax plan. Which, as constituted today per their own document, would actually raise taxes on working-class families with children while massively cutting taxes for corporations and people like Donald Trump." Sean
"...and adding Trillions to the National Debt. As we all know, adding to the National Debt is terrible, awful, and ruinous when the Democrats do it, so it will be nice to see the Republicans, in denouncing this plan, be consistent for once." Moose
CNN Tax Reform
FOX Trump Sells Tax Plan
VOX Tax Plan
NPR Tax Reform
16 comments:
Republicans want stuff but they don't want to pay for it. They also like to fool themselves into thinking that's a policy.
--Hiram
A moment of honesty:
“It’s a great talking point when you have an administration that’s Democrat-led,” said Representative Mark Walker, Republican of North Carolina and the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of about 150 conservative House members. “It’s a little different now that Republicans have both houses and the administration.”
NYT: With Tax Cuts on the Table, Once-Mighty Deficit Hawks Hardly Chirp
An argument I hear a lot is that if government only did what is "essential", all our fiscal problems would be solved. The problem is that the word "essential" is just a label for what we favor. Democrats and Republicans have different priorities for spending, but each party wants to spend. Each party is very comfortable in calling it's priorities essential.
--Hiram
I for better or worse have little to say on this topic until the details are worked out.
Being a eliminate the deficit / reduce the debt guy, I would prefer if they went back to the taxes that were in place when Bill Clinton was in office. (ie the surplus years) Unfortunately neither party wants to do that...
The Conservatives think they were too high. And the Liberals would miss all tax cuts / credits the low income folks have gotten since then.
Don't worry, I'm sure you'll find a way to support it.
Only if it comes with a boat load of spending and government head count reductions... Maybe if they could move all welfare, Medicaid, etc back to the states where it really belongs.
The number of people working for the government is in decline. The increase in the cost of government doesn't come from an increase in the cost of people working for the government.
When people talk about reducing the cost of government, what they are talking about is taking away health care from people. Now whether that's good or bad policy is disputable, but that is what we are talking about.
--Hiram
Source please...
"number of people working for the government is in decline"
And hopefully it will include not only direct employees, but all the contractors, consultants, etc at the Local, State and Federal level.
NR How Fed Govt Grows
And hopefully it will include not only direct employees, but all the contractors, consultants, etc at the Local, State and Federal level.
Those people just aren't in government. If you define everyone who deals with government as part of government, who in America does that leave out? As it is, we seem to have included within government all retirees and everyone who receives Medicaid.
I don't really see government as that different from anything else. But if you want to draw a line you have to draw it somewhere.
--Hiram
I am still waiting for a source.
"number of people working for the government is in decline"
The actual Brookings source
By the way, that is a very good piece.
Another link.
Fed employment Lowest since 1966
Oops.
"The tax outline unveiled this week by President Trump and the congressional Republican leadership would reduce federal revenue by $2.4 trillion over the next decade, according to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center. The plan would cut taxes for low- and middle-income households modestly, while focusing most of its benefits on the highest-income 1 percent.
...
In 2018, the framework would cut taxes for moderate-income households by an average of $660, or 1.2 percent of their after-tax income. By contrast, it would boost the after-tax incomes of the highest-income 1 percent by an average of $130,000, or more than 8 percent. The top 0.1 percent would get an average boost in after-tax income of $720,000 or 10.2 percent of their after-tax income.
...
By 2027, the top 1 percent would get 80 percent of the plan’s tax cuts while the share for middle-income households would drop to about 5 percent. On average, taxes for the top 1 percent would fall by more than $200,000 or 8.7 percent of their after-tax incomes. The top 0.1 percent would do even better. They’d get an average tax cut of more than $1 million, a 9.7 percent boost in their after-tax incomes.
...
But not everyone would win. In 2018, about one in seven middle income households would pay an average of $1,000 more in taxes under this plan. By 2027, more than one of every four middle-income families would pay more in taxes."
Tax Policy Center analysis
First question: how would anyone know since the details are still very vague. They must be making a LOT of assumptions / guesses.
Second question: why do they change the sentence structure?
"In 2018, the framework would cut taxes for moderate-income households by an average of $660, or 1.2 percent of their after-tax income. By contrast, it would boost the after-tax incomes of the highest-income 1 percent by an average of $130,000, or more than 8 percent. The top 0.1 percent would get an average boost in after-tax income of $720,000 or 10.2 percent of their after-tax income."
Do they meqan the same thing?
Post a Comment