+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+----- Forum: The Buckley-Vidal No Spin Room (/forum-970.html)
+----- Thread: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform (/thread-837833.html)
Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - georgia_tech_swagger - 12-20-2017 01:49 PM
Chris Edwards is the Director for Tax Policy at the CATO Institute, the world's preeminent libertarian think tank.
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-20-2017 01:59 PM
Did the territorial system actually make it into the final bill as passed?
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - georgia_tech_swagger - 12-20-2017 02:05 PM
(12-20-2017 01:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Did the territorial system actually make it into the final bill as passed?
Last I heard, yes.
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - georgia_tech_swagger - 12-20-2017 02:33 PM
Policy Analysis: 80% of people will receive a tax cut.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/19/leftleaning-scorekeeper-so-the-gop-tax-bill-cuts-taxes-for80-percent-of-americans-n2424201
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-20-2017 02:44 PM
(12-20-2017 02:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:(12-20-2017 01:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Did the territorial system actually make it into the final bill as passed?
Last I heard, yes.
So, basically, this is the Bowles-Simpson/Domenici-Rivlin approach except that on the individual side they didn't get rid of all the personal deductions and the rates are higher for higher incomes?
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - mturn017 - 12-20-2017 03:03 PM
(12-20-2017 02:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: Policy Analysis: 80% of people will receive a tax cut.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/19/leftleaning-scorekeeper-so-the-gop-tax-bill-cuts-taxes-for80-percent-of-americans-n2424201
This article states that they've been saying for "weeks" that the bill will "slash taxes for the vast majority of Americans" when the finalized bill has been out for days. Under the original House plan many middle income filers would have seen their taxes increase, enough tweaks were made to make many filers (such as myself) go from a tax increase of less than $1,000 to a tax decrease of less than $1,000 (an increase in the CTC and slightly lower brackets). So it's a lot more politically palatable now and proponents have a lot better statistics to spin (as illustrated in this article). Personally, for my situation I saw it as a push before and it's still a push. Don't get me wrong I'll take an extra $800 but selling this as a middle-class tax cut is just not being honest.
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - georgia_tech_swagger - 12-20-2017 03:33 PM
(12-20-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So, basically, this is the Bowles-Simpson/Domenici-Rivlin approach except that on the individual side they didn't get rid of all the personal deductions and the rates are higher for higher incomes?
It is hideous but progress. It actually makes the tax code slightly more progressive but reduces the overall burden while trying to broaden the base and simplify. Without spending cuts though it's of course irresponsible but if I have my choice of deficits from tax cuts or spending I'll choose tax cuts every time.
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - Crebman - 12-20-2017 04:30 PM
(12-20-2017 03:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:(12-20-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So, basically, this is the Bowles-Simpson/Domenici-Rivlin approach except that on the individual side they didn't get rid of all the personal deductions and the rates are higher for higher incomes?
It is hideous but progress. It actually makes the tax code slightly more progressive but reduces the overall burden while trying to broaden the base and simplify. Without spending cuts though it's of course irresponsible but if I have my choice of deficits from tax cuts or spending I'll choose tax cuts every time.
If this can help get (continue) the economy humming with real growth, we may never see the deficits that this projects, or at worst, minimal impact on the deficit. Now, if they could just hold the spending at least flat for a number of years, I'm thinking we could wind up better off than today.
Really, as much as I hate to say it, the pressure on the expenditure side likely won't ease much until the baby boomers start dying off at higher rates. It's coming.....just not there yet. Hoping for myself, I can cheat the grim reaper for a while.
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - mturn017 - 12-20-2017 04:41 PM
(12-20-2017 03:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:(12-20-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So, basically, this is the Bowles-Simpson/Domenici-Rivlin approach except that on the individual side they didn't get rid of all the personal deductions and the rates are higher for higher incomes?
It is hideous but progress. It actually makes the tax code slightly more progressive but reduces the overall burden while trying to broaden the base and simplify. Without spending cuts though it's of course irresponsible but if I have my choice of deficits from tax cuts or spending I'll choose tax cuts every time.
I think other than the fact that most Americans won't have to itemize their deductions anymore there's not a lot of simplification in this bill. Quite the contrary. I had to read the provisions regarding pass-through income three times and am still not sure of what it means. I'd have liked to have seen more reform to go along with the cuts. Ending preferential treatment for certain industries to make things more even across the board would have gone a long way to paying for a reduced corporate rate. They nickel and dimed, here and there not quite cutting anything, just reducing former benefits to offset the cuts enough to get under their magic 1.5 T number, which itself is a farce because whoever is in power in 2025 will extend the cuts for individuals thus increasing the true cost of the bill.
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - arkstfan - 12-20-2017 05:41 PM
(12-20-2017 03:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:(12-20-2017 02:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: Policy Analysis: 80% of people will receive a tax cut.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/19/leftleaning-scorekeeper-so-the-gop-tax-bill-cuts-taxes-for80-percent-of-americans-n2424201
This article states that they've been saying for "weeks" that the bill will "slash taxes for the vast majority of Americans" when the finalized bill has been out for days. Under the original House plan many middle income filers would have seen their taxes increase, enough tweaks were made to make many filers (such as myself) go from a tax increase of less than $1,000 to a tax decrease of less than $1,000 (an increase in the CTC and slightly lower brackets). So it's a lot more politically palatable now and proponents have a lot better statistics to spin (as illustrated in this article). Personally, for my situation I saw it as a push before and it's still a push. Don't get me wrong I'll take an extra $800 but selling this as a middle-class tax cut is just not being honest.
Reducing the number of people itemizing deductions will be helpful just in time saved and improved compliance.
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - Love and Honor - 12-20-2017 07:25 PM
(12-20-2017 03:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:(12-20-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So, basically, this is the Bowles-Simpson/Domenici-Rivlin approach except that on the individual side they didn't get rid of all the personal deductions and the rates are higher for higher incomes?
It is hideous but progress. It actually makes the tax code slightly more progressive but reduces the overall burden while trying to broaden the base and simplify. Without spending cuts though it's of course irresponsible but if I have my choice of deficits from tax cuts or spending I'll choose tax cuts every time.
This bill is being passed through the budget reconciliation process so the CBO has to give it a deficit neutral rating in order to avoid having to receive 60 votes to break the filibuster, they didn't have much of a choice at this point except to keep individual rates merely flat to slightly reduced (with exceptions). Completely agree on the broader point however, the problem is spending. Some have speculated that the current budget cuts for niche government programs is the first step for cuts with entitlements on deck, but color me skeptical.
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-20-2017 08:02 PM
From everything I have seen, the vast majority of the middle class will pay less. In particular, it looks to me like anyone who doesn't itemize under the old law will come out way ahead. So I'm not sure why calling it a middle class tax cut is not being honest. It seems to me that calling it anything else is not being honest.
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - I45owl - 12-20-2017 11:55 PM
(12-20-2017 03:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:(12-20-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So, basically, this is the Bowles-Simpson/Domenici-Rivlin approach except that on the individual side they didn't get rid of all the personal deductions and the rates are higher for higher incomes?It is hideous but progress. It actually makes the tax code slightly more progressive but reduces the overall burden while trying to broaden the base and simplify. Without spending cuts though it's of course irresponsible but if I have my choice of deficits from tax cuts or spending I'll choose tax cuts every time.
There seem like three components to fiscal responsibility from a practical sense for most Americans - tax rates/burden, tax revenue, and spending. I think there are a lot of things I like about this law - reducing the need for itemization for most taxpayers while increasing the standard deduction, reducing corporate rates and disincentives - it really fails to address both overall revenue and spending in a way that will be positive with respect to long-term deficits.
Progressives have criticized the Reagan tax breaks as contributing to deficits, but I don't think that's strictly true... I think it's more accurate to say they were revenue-neutral, while spending increases accounted for the increased deficits. Recent efforts at tax cuts have come more in the form of the "starve-the-beast" form, which is the underwear gnome approach to governance.
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - Owl 69/70/75 - 12-21-2017 08:39 AM
A view from Germany.
http://www.zew.de/en/presse/pressearchiv/deutschland-ist-der-verlierer-der-us-steuerreform/?cHash=75addafc432190cf3c257046de2fb167
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - miko33 - 12-21-2017 09:31 AM
(12-20-2017 11:55 PM)I45owl Wrote:(12-20-2017 03:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:(12-20-2017 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So, basically, this is the Bowles-Simpson/Domenici-Rivlin approach except that on the individual side they didn't get rid of all the personal deductions and the rates are higher for higher incomes?It is hideous but progress. It actually makes the tax code slightly more progressive but reduces the overall burden while trying to broaden the base and simplify. Without spending cuts though it's of course irresponsible but if I have my choice of deficits from tax cuts or spending I'll choose tax cuts every time.
There seem like three components to fiscal responsibility from a practical sense for most Americans - tax rates/burden, tax revenue, and spending. I think there are a lot of things I like about this law - reducing the need for itemization for most taxpayers while increasing the standard deduction, reducing corporate rates and disincentives - it really fails to address both overall revenue and spending in a way that will be positive with respect to long-term deficits.
Progressives have criticized the Reagan tax breaks as contributing to deficits, but I don't think that's strictly true... I think it's more accurate to say they were revenue-neutral, while spending increases accounted for the increased deficits. Recent efforts at tax cuts have come more in the form of the "starve-the-beast" form, which is the underwear gnome approach to governance.
The primary reasons for the increased deficits and runaway debt accumulation is based on 3 things (in no particular order): 1) Defense spending - we've been roped into more and more "police actions" and wars, 2) Social Security - our country is aging and we are not sufficiently replacing ourselves in order to handle the slug of baby boomers going thru the system and 3) Medicare costs rising due to an aging/retiring population group plus exploding costs of medical care.
Those are the real reasons, and it's why the can always gets kicked down the road.
RE: Sunday A/V Club - 12/23/17 - Chris Edwards on GOP tax reform - mturn017 - 12-21-2017 10:15 AM
(12-20-2017 08:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: From everything I have seen, the vast majority of the middle class will pay less. In particular, it looks to me like anyone who doesn't itemize under the old law will come out way ahead. So I'm not sure why calling it a middle class tax cut is not being honest. It seems to me that calling it anything else is not being honest.
Most will pay less. But most of the benefits are geared towards businesses and business owners.
A single person that doesn't itemize and makes 50K will see a reduction of taxes of roughly 1200. At 100K a reduction of roughly 2700. I don't think anybody will turn down a 2.5% increase in their take home pay but it's not going to have a huge effect on their spending habits or lifestyle either. If they itemized before the advantage will be less, if they have children under 17 it will be more.
If that same single 100K income taxpayer earned his money as a partner in a partnership rather than as an employee then his tax savings go from 2700 to 7200 (assuming he's not limited by the wage requirement - edit: at that income level there is no wage requirement)