What I am hearing about Republican tax reform

by on July 28, 2017 at 2:08 am in Current Affairs, Economics, Law | Permalink

“The goal is a plan that reduces tax rates as much as possible, allows unprecedented capital expensing [for businesses], places a priority on permanence, and creates a system that encourages American companies to bring back jobs and profits trapped overseas,” it said.

No Border Adjustment Tax, even Ryan says that, lower rates for small business than for big business, full investment expensing, and an emphasis on permanence (how can they possibly manage that one?).  Will there be a “skinny” version of this bill too?

Here is one article, plus I’ve been trawling Twitter, presumably more details are on the way or maybe not.

1 Yancey Ward July 28, 2017 at 2:23 am

I think by permanence, they mean it will have no sunset. However, after the ACA repeal was shown to be fraud, I now predict that there will be no tax reform either. I think more than a few Republicans are thinking they can simply wait Trump out and pass nothing of significance, and they are going to be stunned at their losses in 2018 much like Hillary! was stunned last November.

2 Ray Lopez July 28, 2017 at 4:03 am

Yeah I think Trump is already a lame duck president. I am planning to pull the Democratic Party ticket lever as a protest. The one good thing Trump had was the border adjustment tax, which he could have used to bash the Chinese for global warming purposes, but they flubbed that. Given no inflation these days and that the USA is a monopolist for the consumer market buying, it would have ‘stuck’ and raised revenue with little retaliation (generally I favor free trade, but just saying this particular tax would have been tough to retaliate, since China makes goods for the US market largely, also I think offshoring manufacturing depletes the skill set of US engineers at the cost of cheaper goods, which essentially is an argument for more consumerism; compare to the ‘high tariff’ US 19th century manufacturers).

3 dan1111 July 28, 2017 at 6:05 am

Yeah…but I thought Trump was an unelectable duck, and look how that turned out.

4 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ July 28, 2017 at 9:00 am

I thought he was an under-appreciated danger, to be opposed every day, but he has found a level lower than even I thought possible.

5 Mark Thorson July 28, 2017 at 11:07 am

I think I speak for many Trump supporters when I say we’ve already got what we wanted. We wanted to throw a firebomb into the system. We managed to overthrow both the Republican and Democratic power structures. We won! More than we ever could have hoped! If we get any other victories, that’s just gravy. If you want to impeach him, go right ahead! We’ll bring the popcorn.

6 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ July 28, 2017 at 11:20 am

Other than “the show” you got executive orders easily reversed by the next president.

7 Bob from Ohio July 28, 2017 at 11:27 am

“Other than “the show” you got executive orders easily reversed by the next president.”

Not Trump’s fault. As last night showed, there is a de facto Democratic majority in the Senate for everything but judge confirmation.

8 dan1111 July 28, 2017 at 11:35 am

Maybe the Senate would have failed to pass anything even if Trump had provided consistent, coherent leadership. But we shall never know.

9 Ray Lopez July 28, 2017 at 1:36 pm

@Mark Thorson – “I think I speak for many Trump supporters when I say we’ve already got what we wanted. We wanted to throw a firebomb into the system. We managed to overthrow both the Republican and Democratic power structures” – why is that important the excellent MT? I live all over the world and have seen political parties come and go, in Greece, Thailand, the Philippines (all countries I’ve lived in over a year). I actually am qualified as a second passport holder to vote in Greece (never have, was tempted to vote for the Greek Communist party, which technically is really just a “nationalist” party these days, just for fun). Who cares about politics? Half the time I don’t even vote in the USA (too difficult to do absentee ballots these days). From an economics viewpoint, the only thing that matters long term according to the Solow equation (which seems to capture long term growth rather nicely) is productivity. And how to raise productivity (better patent laws say I) is never discussed by either the general public or politicians. Dividing up the pie is popular (e.g., taxes), but how to increase the pie–you as a nuclear inventor should realize this–is not discussed. Unless taxes are at confiscatory levels and unless there’s no freedom to establish wealth (arguably the case in some of these Southeast Asian countries, since they have too many 1% rich people owning too much wealth), redistribution politics should not matter. Certainly it doesn’t matter in the USA (both main parties are largely centralist, each aping the other like Coke and Pepsi do, and Trump himself is a populist, no big revolutionary).

10 Pshrnk July 28, 2017 at 2:23 pm

Deplorable.

11 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ July 28, 2017 at 3:03 pm

“We managed to overthrow both the Republican and Democratic power structures. We won!”

Um. Where does empowering police brutality fit into that overthrow?

https://twitter.com/DavidNakamura/status/891003591003189248

12 GoneWithTheWind July 28, 2017 at 4:49 pm

In all fairness either you are in favor of a large tax cut to bring back jobs and improve the economy or you are in favor of keeping the government foot on the neck of the economy at the expense of the middle class. It isn’t over yet. The good guys may still triumph over the evil left. Don’t county your socialist chickens yet.

13 Itsallrigged July 29, 2017 at 4:53 am

I predict that the nadir has not yet been reached. You are willing to unleash that level of risk on the world for what?

14 John Thacker July 28, 2017 at 10:33 am

Border adjustment is not a tariff, though I agree that they were trying to sell it as such to some people (which backfired with others.) It’s simply taxing based on consumption rather than production. All VATs are border adjusted for the same reason.

The DBCFT was and is a perfectly free trade tax. A pure consumption tax, a pure production tax, and a mixed system of taxation are all neutral from one point of view (and not from another) and free trade compatible.

15 John Thacker July 28, 2017 at 10:35 am

A border adjusted tax would tax all its residents consumption at the same rate, whether for things produced there or produced elsewhere. How does that violate free trade? (What it would do is tax things produced at home less if exported, since they wouldn’t be consumed there.)

It also would have the major effect of being much easier to deal with tax avoidance. The problem of where something is produced (as especially, where the value is produced) is difficult. The problem of where it is consumed is more tractable. Production based taxes suffer more from base erosion and avoidance.

16 John Thacker July 28, 2017 at 10:40 am

The more that other countries shift to VATs and cut their production based income taxes, the more it makes sense for the USA to shift to a consumption-based tax as well. The primary argument against going full DBCFT is that it was a dramatic shift, from US taxation being considerably more production-based than the rest of the world to being considerably more consumption-based. I assume that the plan was used because of the attraction of completely eliminating one tax when introducing another, rather than introducing a VAT plus halving regular production-based corporate tax rates and having more complexity.

Apparently that objection of uncertainty was enough to cause economists who otherwise say they favor consumption-based taxes to oppose such a dramatic shift towards one. I guess they would prefer the mixed strategy of introducing a VAT while slowing cutting the corporate income tax rates, as other countries have done.

17 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ July 28, 2017 at 11:19 am

I thought, in the past, that US VATs tended to be proposed as add-ons, and not shifts to a new tax regime. I’m not sure Congress is ready for something that radical now, but I’d be willing to listen – especially with CBO scoring.

It has also occurred to me that as computational costs fall towards zero, the overhead of a VAT falls as well. Perhaps we can move to “no file” taxes on many fronts, not just for individuals, as the servers quietly hum in the background.

18 Larry Siegel July 31, 2017 at 1:27 am

I thought you lived in the Philippines.

19 dan1111 July 28, 2017 at 6:05 am

Note: it’s very easy to emphasize permanence. Achieving it is another matter.

20 Rich Berger July 28, 2017 at 6:21 am

Millions have gone wrong underestimating Trump. He turns that to his advantage and his adversaries never learn.

21 prior_test3 July 28, 2017 at 6:32 am

Thankfully, Putin is Trump’s seeming friend, so no worries there.

22 dan1111 July 28, 2017 at 6:36 am

That’s true, but as a counterpoint, people tend to reason too much from wins and losses. If you win, you’re a juggernaut, and if you lose you’re an abject failure. Never mind that the distance between the two is often very narrow. This happens in sports, where a narrative builds around the championship team being the team of destiny, and the losing team being chokers, flawed, etc. Even though a few random events may separate the two. And it happens in politics, too.

As for Trump, his rise in the primaries was remarkable. But he also benefited from a divided field, long primary, and anti-establishment mood working against the more traditional candidates. In the general election, he faced one of the most flawed candidates in history, and won narrowly (getting many fewer votes than her).

Trump was certainly successful, and proved many naysayers wrong. But I don’t think his ability to just barely beat Hillary demonstrates that he is a political genius or invalidates every criticism made against him.

23 Lee A. Arnold July 28, 2017 at 8:00 am

Trump is the classic caricature of a Hollywood movie producer, all sizzle no steak. “What Makes Sammy Run.” An ego, prancing in a mirror. He doesn’t understand the world, nor economics, just the limited purview of shady commercial real estate deals. Bankrupt 4 times; until the only people willing to deal with him are Saudi princes & Russian oligarchs. Wins the Presidency against an unpalatable candidate. Thinks that gov’t can be run by command like a business. Now, he is playing a losing hand: he cannot increase his political support without substantive results, but he is incapable of formulating those policies himself. He just wanted to dictate commands: wanted to glide into glory on the backs of a successful congressional GOP. But this is an era when the Republican Party is against those things that the system really needs: a slightly bigger gov’t, paid for out of current taxation (or, in the case of healthcare, saving money by going to single-payer). Trump’s voters are rightly frustrated with the status quo, worried about the future. But they don’t yet understand that high-paying manufacturing jobs are disappearing world-side. They don’t yet understand that Trump doesn’t understand.

24 prior_test3 July 28, 2017 at 8:23 am

‘until the only people willing to deal with him are Saudi princes’

Saudi princes deal with all sorts of people – the Bush family, for example.

25 Brian Donohue July 28, 2017 at 8:55 am

“But I don’t think his ability to just barely beat Hillary demonstrates that he is a political genius or invalidates every criticism made against him.”

Certainly, it invalidates nothing in the man’s checkered past, but it was a stunning accomplishment.

Go back to that 2012 dinner, with Obama playfully sticking it to Trump. It’s quite amazing what happened.

Or even August 2015. I gave the guy a week before shuffling on. He didn’t just beat Hillary, he steamrolled a large and not awful bundle of GOPers.

Complete outsider. Didn’t spend a lot of money. Less “owned” by outside interests than maybe any alternative.

Give the guy his due. To me, there’s a reason for this arduous vetting process.

Yeah, he’s pretty crass and has some unsettling personality quirks. But official Washington seems to have him boxed in. Gridlock until 2020 is quite possibly the best outcome. Go back to your lives, people.

26 prior_test3 July 28, 2017 at 9:14 am

‘Less “owned” by outside interests than maybe any alternative.’

‘Owned’ may not be the correct terminology – ‘compromised’ comes to mind though.

27 Brian Donohue July 28, 2017 at 9:31 am

Fine. Less “compromised” than maybe any alternative.

P.S. I didn’t misinterpret your sniveling comment.

28 dan1111 July 28, 2017 at 9:42 am

I agree that his rise was a stunning accomplishment. And it could not have been done without talent.

But did he succeed because he is a political genius? Or because he had a particular style and message that happened to fit the moment? His fans tend to argue the former, while I believe the latter. He is very good at doing what he does, but he doesn’t seem able to adapt to different circumstances that may require a different approach.

29 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ July 28, 2017 at 9:52 am

I said a long time ago that Trump was not calculating to appeal to the angry old Fox viewer, he was one.

And darned if he couldn’t stop being that guy, as President of the United States. As many of noted, he tweets about “them” as if he wasn’t even in government.

30 dan1111 July 28, 2017 at 10:14 am

“Trump was not calculating to appeal to the angry old Fox viewer, he was one.”

Apt description.

31 Hazel Meade July 28, 2017 at 12:22 pm

I find it interesting how he turned on Jeff Sessions, his own appointee, and a controversial one too, because Sessions wouldn’t kowtow to him on the Russia investigation. All the people who went out on a limb to defend Sessions look like idiots now. Trump threw him under the bus rather easily, and that sent a message to everyone else, it doesn’t pay to display loyalty, as the President is going to change his mind on a dime about whose side he’s on.

I think the Russia thing is just getting going too. It’s never the scandal, it’s the cover up. And Trump just can’t stop himself from trying to mess with the investigation. He didn’t learn a thing from the Comey firing.

32 msgkings July 28, 2017 at 1:16 pm

dan1111 continues to win this blog. Once again, +1 to a post of yours.

33 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ July 28, 2017 at 9:15 am

Trump had two things going for him. First, unprecedented polarization. Second, a bunch of peers operating on a simplified world view. Trump was the perfect candidate for impassioned, but low information, voters.

One would hope that both of those factors are changed this morning. “Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated,” but now we do. And the idea that crap bills should be pushed through for the Party seems shot as well.

A smart bipartisan tax bill would work. We’ll see if partisanship and simplified world views still prevail.

34 A Definite Beta Guy July 28, 2017 at 9:19 am

What bipartisan tax bill would pass?

35 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ July 28, 2017 at 9:31 am

I don’t think liberals oppose border adjustments, or even increased tariffs, philosophically. There might be a lot of room to do revenue neutral “ish” changes to improve the prospects for growth.

If you go from “increased tariffs” to full protectionism you would get push back from economists and globalists, but I don’t think Congress has many “full protectionists” to push those things.

36 Bob from Ohio July 28, 2017 at 11:25 am

“What bipartisan tax bill would pass?”

One that pleases those who contribute to both “opposing” parties.

37 Art Deco July 28, 2017 at 9:50 am

Trump present or Trump absent, the Republican congressional caucus will screw it all up. If they pass anything at all, it will be something which provides bon bons to Donohue of the Chamber of Commerce and that will be all. Even the lowest hanging fruit (NEH, NEA, ExIm Bank) will be left on the tree with brave brave brave Sir Mitchell in charge.

38 prior_test3 July 28, 2017 at 3:42 am

‘plus I’ve been trawling Twitter’

Anything from Trump yet? https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot/ allows for the proper gravitas associated with presidential statements.

39 Anon July 28, 2017 at 8:03 am

“real”presssec ? Is there a fake one also?

40 dan1111 July 28, 2017 at 8:08 am

This is the fake one. The real one is called RealRealPressSecBotThisIsTotallyNotFake.

41 prior_test3 July 28, 2017 at 8:31 am

Sort of fake – the tweets are apparently 100% accurate, it is simply that they are then provided the appearance of an official presidential statement, something that neither Trump nor Spicer were able to do whenever Trump has used Twitter as president.

Maybe someone in the White House will finally be able to make Twitter part of the customary press office process, including a more distinctive style suiting the office of the presidency. Or at least its current occupant.

And that point about using Trump’s own tweets is pretty critical – there is nothing fake about what is being presented, apart from actually lending whatever it is that Trump tweets the gravitas of an official presidential statement.

42 Frank July 28, 2017 at 5:01 am

Not likely! He always favors the 1% while screwing us!

43 rayward July 28, 2017 at 5:58 am

Of course, “small business” is a Republican euphemism for pass-through entities, no mater how large they may be. “Mr. Ryan and Mr. Brady were both dismissive of Mr. Trump’s recent suggestion that perhaps the rich should see their tax rates increase to offer more relief to the middle class. To avoid getting bogged down, some Republicans have said that the party should simply push through short-term tax cuts, even if they would add to deficits and expire in 10 years. So far, however, Republican leaders remain committed to a deficit-neutral tax plan that would not reduce tax revenue.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/us/politics/trump-taxes-congress-republicans.html Yes, “so far”. To make it deficit-neutral, the tax plan would have to include major cuts to entitlements, including Medicare and social security. If Republicans can’t repeal Obamacare after an eight-year campaign of deceit, how is Ryan going to cut Medicare and social security, two programs that are popular even with right-wing populists. Republican leaders aren’t the only fantasists. Investors have put a $21 billion valuation on SpaceX, Elon Musk’s project that intends to operate transit to shuttle people between the Earth and Mars. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/technology/spacex-is-now-one-of-the-worlds-most-valuable-privately-held-companies.html America can’t even build and maintain transit on the ground to shuttle people between places that are a lot more hospitable than Mars.

44 dan1111 July 28, 2017 at 6:17 am

SpaceX has a legit revenue stream launching satellites, and also potentially in carrying cargo and crew for NASA. Also, space tourism is likely to be a viable revenue source in the near term.

SpaceX may be overvalued, but I don’t think it’s mainly about pie-in-the-sky thinking.

45 rayward July 28, 2017 at 6:45 am

Since major cuts to Medicare and social security are a political non-starter, one can expect the “Republican leaders” to resort to the old stand-by: dire warnings of imminent bankruptcy of the two programs, necessitating another large tax increase for working Americans. Such was the scam perpetrated in the 1980s, a beautifully designed and implemented scam, but a scam nevertheless. Would the “Republican leaders” propose the same scam again? You betcha!

46 dan1111 July 28, 2017 at 6:46 am

Every single developed country in the world is worried about having enough money to care for their old people. But sure, this is a Republican scam.

47 TMC July 28, 2017 at 11:18 am

Paying your bills is now a scam? You really are hard democrat.

48 chrisare July 28, 2017 at 6:16 am

Isn’t this just what Tyler has read?

49 prior_test3 July 28, 2017 at 6:33 am

Yes, but it is coming straight to you from him, so try to be appreciative of the public service being performed.

50 dan1111 July 28, 2017 at 6:40 am

What? This post is loaded with commentary (though perhaps too subtle for some).

> (how can they possibly manage that one?)

> Will there be a “skinny” version of this bill too?

> presumably more details are on the way or maybe not.

51 prior_test3 July 28, 2017 at 7:06 am

Questions are not commentary, and a conclusion that ends with maybe or maybe not is something that one would assume that most GMU professors in most faculties would not allow an undergraduate to get away with.

52 dan1111 July 28, 2017 at 7:10 am

As I said, “too subtle for some”.

53 prior_test3 July 28, 2017 at 8:34 am

Well, apparently I was epically trolled by being called a puffin, so subtlety is not one of my apparent strengths.

But if this is what you consider commentary, OK.

Most editors, not to mention high school teachers, would consider it profoundly lazy writing.

54 Bob from Ohio July 28, 2017 at 11:24 am

“profoundly lazy writing”

Unlike pasting 8 paragraphs from wikipedia I guess.

55 prior_test3 July 28, 2017 at 12:38 pm

‘Unlike pasting 8 paragraphs from wikipedia’

Excerpting is not writing – what comes from wikipedia is not my writing, after all.

If you wish to say citing wikipedia is lazy, there is more than a bit of truth in that. The problem here is you never know what links are allowed, and which aren’t, a problem that wikipedia links do not have, as till now, they have always been postable.

56 msgkings July 28, 2017 at 1:23 pm

@prior: I love that you are still quivering with rage trying to figure out how Tyler trolled you weeks ago.

57 JWatts July 28, 2017 at 3:38 pm

“@prior: I love that you are still quivering with rage trying to figure out how Tyler trolled you weeks ago.”

+1, give it a rest prior_test3, you’re in over your head

58 Thor July 28, 2017 at 7:43 pm

Ya paragraph pasting puffin ya!

59 Lee A. Arnold July 28, 2017 at 6:43 am

I think they should do a Skinny Rich Tax HIKE, to get the economy going.

60 dan1111 July 28, 2017 at 6:45 am

It may help the economy, but it will sure serve as a perverse incentive in regard to the diabetes epidemic.

61 msgkings July 28, 2017 at 1:24 pm

LOL…seriously were you always this good of a commenter?

62 TMC July 28, 2017 at 11:20 am
63 Bill July 28, 2017 at 8:50 am

Let’s see what the specifics of the tax proposal are first. My guess is what they will do is repatriate US multinational (MNC) earnings stored abroad; impose a small tax on it to fund other proposals; claim that there will be morning in America…

Multinational taxation may have multinationals supporting it as there are movements in Europe and elsewhere in the OECD to cut back or investigate some of the schemes that MNCs use to avoid taxes. So, MNC tax reform may be welcome by MNCs since they then could hide behind US tax treaties.

As for individual members of the middle class, expect $100 in tax cuts around April 15 payable around election time.

Whatever happened to the deficit?

64 mavery July 28, 2017 at 10:09 am

I’m guessing we’ll have to wait for tax reform to go to committee before we’ll learn what the specifics are.

65 Bill July 28, 2017 at 11:47 am

What do you mean go to the committee. We’ll have the leadership and President decide and we will go to the Republican caucus, where it will be voted on and then, at night, we will go straight to the floor and vote on a party line basis.

66 Bob from Ohio July 28, 2017 at 12:22 pm

“vote on a party line basis”

You need 60 votes in the Senate.

So Ways and Means in the House will hold hearings and pass a “bipartisan” that heavily favors big business and gives a few crumbs to regular people.

Then it passes the House. Senate Finance lays on some more big business treats and removes a few middle class crumbs with maybe some left wing social nonsense to get Warren’s vote.

Passes Senate. Passes House. Trump signs.

Much rejoicing in Silicon Valley and Wall Street.

67 msgkings July 28, 2017 at 1:26 pm

Did you forget corporations (big business) are people too, Bob?

68 Bob from Ohio July 28, 2017 at 1:45 pm

“Did you forget corporations (big business) are people too, Bob?”

Not at all. My problem is that both “opposing” parties think they big business is [are?] the only people who actually matter.

BTW, most corporations are not “big business”. I work for one, it has 12 employees.

69 Bill July 29, 2017 at 2:57 pm

Bob, that statement of 60 votes is actually not correct if it is put in the budget resolution and does not change the deficit. You can do it with 50 votes, as they tried to do with repeal and replace.

70 byomtov July 29, 2017 at 6:06 pm

“Does not change the deficit.”

How are they going to manage that, I wonder.

I’m sure there’s some film-flam involved – “We’ll double taxes in 2027 and that will make up or it all,” or something like that.

71 The Other Jim July 28, 2017 at 6:46 pm

>Let’s see what the specifics of the tax proposal are first.

That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard. We should just guess, so that we can rip the people we already hate for doing things they haven’t even done!

Next you’ll tell me there needs to be a crime committed before we can start congressional investigations into that crime. Get real, newb.

72 GW July 28, 2017 at 9:30 am

“Permanence” in tax policy has two different manifestations. The first is that of an inertia in which a tax, once introduced, can never quite disappear. Take the German salt tax as an example. Introduced in times long ago and for purposes long forgotten, it no longer has any useful function and the revenue derived is insignificantly tiny, but it remains on the books and continues to be collected, as the cost of changing it would be, at least temporarily, far in excess of the benefit. The second manifestation is of permanence written directly into a tax law. California’s Prop. 13 is precisely such an animal, a blunt instrument responding to the need for a sensitive repair to rebalance a system with safeguards for a changing economy based around three complementary taxes (property, sales, and income) and including such strigent requirements for its own repair that everything since 1978 has been a stop gap measure because of the practical impossibility of changing or replacing Prop. 13.

73 dan1111 July 28, 2017 at 9:46 am

Yeah, but the difficulty of getting rid of Prop 13 mainly stems from it being a ballot measure, does it not? And Congress doesn’t have that tool at its disposal.

74 Jeffrey Eric Fisher July 28, 2017 at 1:15 pm

Prop 13 is a state constitutional amendment, which makes it tougher to remove, but in California that’s just a majority popular vote.

But the main problem is its built in base of support. It is a prop for real estate value. Its passage was a windfall for property owners at passage. Its repeal would take money straight out of current home owners pockets, and their real estate value. Home owners vote very reliably.

75 Jeju July 28, 2017 at 10:34 am

Check your facts on the German salt tax. It was abolished in 1993: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salzsteuer

76 Thiago Ribeiro July 28, 2017 at 9:43 am

Let’s make no bones about it: recent facts showed, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the American Ship of State is adrift.

77 The Other Jim July 28, 2017 at 6:48 pm

This guy isn’t even trying any more. I see his name these days and I just skip over it.

Sad!

78 Thiago Ribeiro July 29, 2017 at 9:25 am

I guess you have to kow tow to your masters.

79 August Hurtel July 28, 2017 at 9:47 am

Aside from some pet ideas Ryan may have, the general idea here is to treat Trump as Minnesotan politicians treated Jesse Ventura.

It’ll either be a non-thing, or it will be some sort of crap compromise bill the legislators hash out amongst themselves.

Unless this impasse can be broken, and those who cry Russia are being investigated, rather than the innocent people who just got there.

80 Euripides July 28, 2017 at 11:07 am

It seems to me that no GOP bill of any importance can be passed in this term…Why? Because Dems will not give ANY GOP bill a single vote. And there is always about 2 or 3 GOP senators that are not convinced by their own bill and vote against it.
So, don’t waste too much time discussing the details of this bil!!

81 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ July 28, 2017 at 11:11 am

“Russia Sanctions Bill Clears the Senate With Bipartisan Vote”

82 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ July 28, 2017 at 11:12 am

“Financial Services panel passes four bipartisan bills”

83 Bill July 28, 2017 at 11:12 am

Sen. Levin and others have done bipartisan work on tax reform in the past. The reason you are not seeing a bigger tax cut proposed, and why it is being discussed now, is because without cutting Medicaid they will have less to play with. You are looking at this in a too partisan way, and overlooking past work in the Senate Finance committee studying this issue in a bipartisan way.

If you want to be partisan, then why be surprised when you get a reaction.

Regular order, and not just six Republicans determining tax policy.

84 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ July 28, 2017 at 11:13 am

“Senate Passes $1 Trillion Omnibus ‘Bipartisan’ Bill to Fund Government Through September”

85 Bob from Ohio July 28, 2017 at 11:22 am

As ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ points out, Congress is quite capable of being “bipartisan” when it means they can deliver stupid things or please their true masters.

Bipartisan is Latin for conservatives get boned again.

86 Moo cow July 28, 2017 at 11:45 am

You could change “cinservatives” to “liberals” and post your comment on Daily Kos.

87 Bob from Ohio July 28, 2017 at 11:52 am

“liberals” and post your comment on Daily Kos”

Liberals got Obamacare and Dodd-Frank the last time they had president and both houses of congress.

Last major policy victory for conservatives was when?

88 Thiago Ribeiro July 28, 2017 at 12:38 pm

Maybe there are no Conservatives. After all, every president from Lincoln to Nixon and from Bush I to Trump was a RINO, I am told. McCain was the 2008 nominated and is a Vietnam veteran. Dobson vouched for Trump, who crushed all those “fake” manistream Republicans. Maybe there are no real Conservative voters, no real Republicans left.

89 Moo cow July 28, 2017 at 3:26 pm

Supreme Court? Was that a long time ago now?

90 Boonton July 29, 2017 at 6:52 am

Sounds like affirmative action for conservatives.

“They got a touch down last time they got the ball. We can barely squeek out a field goal. That’s not fair!”

91 Ricardo July 29, 2017 at 11:21 am

“Last major policy victory for conservatives was when?”

Republican primary voters nominated a guy for President who promised not to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. If you disagree with candidate Trump’s position on these, take it up with the millions of people you share a party with.

92 Boonton July 29, 2017 at 4:59 pm

Republican primary voters nominated a guy for President who promised not to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid

This is nothing new. Mitt Romney ran on a position that took three hundred steps to explain why Mass’s Romneycare was not the same thing as ObamaCare AND he was going to ‘restore’ all the ‘horrible cuts’ Obama made to Medicare.

Conservative’s main problem is that they got too comfortable with dishonesty long ago. Trump didn’t make them suddenly start embracing positions that make no sense or contradict things they said 5 minutes ago. Notice, for example, the fact that the health care bills recently defeated all share one common trait. They smell like a term paper written the night before it was due despite the student having the whole semester to work on it. Is that Trump’s fault?

93 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ July 28, 2017 at 11:46 am

Liberals feel the same way, though. It’s the Horseshoe Theory in action.

94 August Hurtel July 28, 2017 at 1:16 pm

Conservative as a brand is effectively dead. They didn’t conserve anything.
But Trump isn’t a RINO. He’s his own man. He’s going to try to make America great again by his own internal metric. It may work, it may suck, but it ain’t gonna be the same crap that we’ve had for decades.

95 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ July 28, 2017 at 1:41 pm

You may be looking at Thiago’s harsh comment, but you both have a point.

This has been a couple rough decades. The dot com boom, and the housing boom, brought wealth to many, but the crashes took much of it away. Add the Great Recession and the Great Hollowing, and you have a lot of economic pain.

The question is where we should go from here, and what policies help us all, rather than merely make the other side cry.

96 Boonton July 29, 2017 at 7:52 am

Ahhh yes, the Scott Adams 4-dimensional chess argument for Trump. It’s not simple incompetence combined with narcissism. It’s all a brilliant mix of performance art and misdirection intended to implement an agenda which lives as an ‘internal metric’. This agenda only appears to be left over, warmed over Republican conservatism from the 80’s but is in fact some other strange ideology that no one who isn’t already part of the club can articulate or talk about.

Leave aside the fact that by far the simplest explanation at this point is Trump is excellent at creating a cult of celebrity but horrible at actually delivering substance (this is why he’s gotten a lot of different people to give him money for his businesses, but he rarely seems to get serious money from the same entity more than once). Let’s pretend this explanation is really true. What does it say about democracy? That not only can we not vote on the ideology that will be implemented in our gov’t but we can’t even hear about it? With Plato’s Noble Lie, at least the elites got to hear what the real game plan was.

97 Bob from Ohio July 28, 2017 at 11:20 am

Any decent bill won’t get 60 votes in the Senate.

Hopefully nothing at all will pass in that case.

98 Jay July 28, 2017 at 12:38 pm

“allows unprecedented capital expensing [for businesses],”

Great! More cash basis accounting as opposed to accrual basis accounting. How did that work out for pensions pre ERISA?

99 JWatts July 28, 2017 at 3:47 pm

“Great! More cash basis accounting as opposed to accrual basis accounting. ”

Tax policy shouldn’t be the basis for your depreciation. Depreciation should be based upon a reasonable conservative estimate of the durability of the good.

100 Donald Pretari July 28, 2017 at 12:49 pm

I think making tax rates and tax plans permanent without even mentioning spending says it all, even though it clearly isn’t all.

101 Bill July 28, 2017 at 3:16 pm

Republican tax reform: If you are very wealthy, you pay less. If you make between 150k to 300k you pay more.

That simple.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bad-news-if-you-make-150-000-to-300-000-higher-taxes-for-many-1501234200

102 JWatts July 28, 2017 at 3:51 pm

So, it’s making the tax rate flatter, bringing the top to tax rates closer together. Ok, as long as it doesn’t lead to higher deficits, I’m ok with it.

103 Bill July 28, 2017 at 4:24 pm

A progressive income tax makes things flatter if you look at utility theory.

How do you like that 4th ice cream cone, or that third house.

104 Volumewarrior July 28, 2017 at 5:25 pm

> implying the wealthy spend all their income on luxury goods

I asked Marty Zucc how he liked his 572th mansion.

105 JWatts July 28, 2017 at 5:46 pm

“A progressive income tax makes things flatter if you look at utility theory.”

You can always claim night is day if you try hard enough.

How is the phrase: “A progressive income tax makes things flatter” significantly different than the Orwellian “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

By any rational point of view a progressive income tax makes taxes less equal. Any claim that it makes taxes flatter is delusional. You are denying the reality of the situation because it’s inimical to your world view.

106 Diana Briggs July 31, 2017 at 11:56 am

Here lies the difference between equal and fair. I don’t mind some people making wild amounts of money so long as they pay at least as much proportionately as I do. Tax rates favorable to the wealthiest have steadily shifted money out of public coffers over the past 40 years. That might not have been the primary cause of a general decline in infrastructure and services, but it definitely isn’t helping. The tragedy of supply-side economics is that the people accumulating wealth hang onto their cash instead of releasing it back into the economy. Even buying yachts and mansions might be better than what the 1% is actually doing, which is sitting on most of that wealth. I’m not one for radical redistribution, but something needs to get at least some of that money moving again.

107 Brian Donohue July 29, 2017 at 10:01 am

I’m not in favor of a tax cut on the rich, but eliminating the state and local tax deduction is an obvious GOP move, and one I’m on board with, even if it increases my own taxes. Blue states hardest hit:

“In this case, the affluent taxpayers at risk of owing more after an overhaul are especially likely to live in high-tax states such as California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.”

108 Bill July 29, 2017 at 7:37 pm

How about backing out subsidies for domestic oil exploration for oil exported from the US?

109 prior_test3 July 28, 2017 at 6:01 pm

So, trawling twitter, how will the tax thing go with a former RNC head no longer in the White House?

Really, cannot emphasize enough just how nice https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot/ makes Trump’s presidential statements looks

110 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ July 28, 2017 at 10:44 pm

Well, it has been a crazy day. Much has changed, but I think the most important is a split. Congress has done nothing in the last 24 hours to endear itself to the White House, and the White House has done nothing to endear itself to Congress.

We might start the week with a Congress finding its own way. There could be some upside in that.

I’m not sure what will be going on in the White House, but I’d guess they’ll be finding new ways to eat their own.

It might be a good time for reasonable conservatives to name center-right policies this newly independent Congress might accept.

111 zztop July 29, 2017 at 3:14 pm

Word on the Hill is “skinnyreform”.

112 Shaun Marsh July 29, 2017 at 7:17 pm

I think this has been heard from fairly long time, but it will be interesting when this starts coming into action, as obviously that’s most important part. We need to be extremely careful and keep note of these possibilities, as a trader, I keep close watch on this. It’s also easier under company like OctaFX, as they are awesome with been licensed by FCA and providing me with daily market news, forecast and trading tips too, so it’s just picture perfect.

113 Larry Siegel July 31, 2017 at 1:40 am

Here’s a skinny reform: Cut the corporate tax.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: