You mentioned the models in your post, so it is on you to provide the evidence. Thanks for posting the link, however, the documents re utterly worthless. There are no methods of how the numbers were calculated. If I would try to publish a paper like this it would be rejected with devastating peer reviews and rightly so. Nobody can reproduce how these imaginary numbers were obtained. As I said, propaganda.
I haven't looked at any "models", and I would assume that one could find such things to support whatever you wanted them to say. The sad thing here is that even with the best of intentions- an idea like tax reform has to go through the processes of congress, and the chance of it coming out even vaguely resembling what was first intended is probably zero. A president can propose something, but he actually cannot submit a bill. He has to find a house congressman to do that. Then the massive surgery begins, and another Frankenstein monster is created. I don't know which way this thing will go- I'll know that after my accountant tells me what's it's final effects are. I'm hoping for the best, of course. Something financially sound as opposed to just popular.
This is a forum it's not on me to provide anything. My post was about the press briefing and my evaluation of the briefer and what he provided. It's on everyone including you to do your own research, not take anyone's word for it, and form your own opinion. Asking for everything instead of looking at it yourself only creates issues. Issues in either you are just asking for it because you don't want to look yourself meaning you won't have an informed opinion or that you just want to ask for it so you can then say it means nothing disingenuously.
You were the one praising Hassett and claiming that all "models" show a wage increase after reduction of corporate tax rates. If you make that claim, it is on you to provide the evidence, including citations. If you don't want to do that, then don't cite models to keep the discussion on a qualitative basis. You could also just say "socialism sucks" or "capitalism sucks", which is the level of most debates on here. Of course, you won't get much credibility doing that. On the other hand, if you can support your opinion with actual data, it will have a lot more weight.
So, we have to pass it to see what's in it. Just saying, because your side has used that line to oblivion. Now, the same fits to Trump's tax plan.
I am disingenuous? The only thing I see is your unwillingness to defend the claims that you have made, while trying to put the onus on me. I highly doubt the projected $4,000 raise touted in these papers, based on the fact that people haven't seen such raises since the late 70s, despite two large supply side tax cuts. If you want to provide actual evidence of the veracity of the $4,000 number, you are free to provide it. If you don't want to do that, my conclusion is that you can't provide evidence.
I clearly defended them despite the fact that you were unwilling to do your own research, and the evidence is there (that’s what I provided, duhhh) the fact that you don’t like it is irrelevant to it’s existence. You also claimed that I was praising Hassett when I clearly stated twice that I am not familiar with him but though he did a good job. You disingenuously misrepresented what I said because this is more about who you dont like politically than it is about taxes. Like I said, you are being disingenuous and I have no patience for a disingenuous conversation.
The first line from your initial post I responded to: "The White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett did a nice job talking on the tax plan in his White House Briefing." That sounds like praising to me. In any case, I am not sure why you keep saying I am disingenuous, basically meaning that i am lying. There is no evidence for that from this exchange either.
I don't like dependence, but I also don't like people willing to work not having a way to earn their keep. I'd sum up my approach as workfare, not welfare. People should be trained and encouraged to produce, and we should make sure we have private business providing as many jobs as possible by implementing a negative income tax (Milton Friedman's idea). Bottom line, anyone willing to work should be able to earn enough income to find a warm bed and food.
Just some feedback in order as I read your OP ... First of all, and most important, is that we can opine and comment away - what we do here - but we will be much better able to judge this bill after the House and Senate reconcile, and there is truly is a finished bill. The elimination of the state income tax as a deduction does have some limited affect on some middle class taxpayers, but it really hits the rich. In my state, if you earn $1 million in a year, you owe the state $99,000 in income tax. That used to be deductible, but no more. This, by the way, is the real reason your hypocritical Democratic members of Congress are against it - because they give lip service to the middle class, while they represent the rich. The mortgage interest deduction is capped at a level that only affects the rich, not the middle class. For the middle class people who would ordinarily itemize their deductions, taxes are very likely going to go down. This is because the tax rates are lower under this proposal. Under both proposals, the Standard Deduction is doubled up to $24,000. The combination of the Standard Deduction and lower rates is going to result in lower taxes for most people. I am an example of that. I have itemized my deductions for years. Last year I itemized a total of $26,000 in deductions. Under this proposed law, my largest deductions are gone, forcing me to take the Standard Deduction instead and not itemize. I would actually end up with more taxable income, but lower taxes because the rates are lower in the different brackets. People who don't itemize are almost certain to see a tax cut because of the doubled Standard Deduction and lower rates. Golf courses and other properties may still donate some of their land to conservation for a tax credit. I would think that environmentally conscious liberals would be good with that. Lower corporate taxes are not really supposed to increase the amount of jobs in companies already in the U.S. Those lower rates are intended as a carrot to keep those companies in the U.S. and to attract foreign companies to set up shop in the U.S. I hope it works. If it does, the beneficiary is the American worker, another constituency the Democrats used to care about. My
Yes I have read a lot of tax law. Done a very complicated estate. Done my own taxes including business and stocks, and land swaps, and MLP's, etc, etc. Tax law isn't nearly as complicated as quanum physics. It is actually kind of interesting, at least compared to spending your life watching sports on Television.
First- employers are not social service agencies. They are buying services from employees, not guaranteeing society that everybody will have a job, let alone one they like. There's a part of the problem that is seldom mentioned- and that is that "work" does not mean a presence at a job. What it really means in productivity, accomplishing things that make you valuable to the employer- who is your customer, the person buying your services. We guarantee minimum wages, we have all kinds of protections for labor that guarantee he will be paid- but as far as I know, absolutely nothing that guarantees that the employer will get zip in return. More and more, people are acting like their employer is a social service agency that owes them, and they are underpaid slaves. people who hate their employer or their job are invariably not going to be appreciated, promoted or given raises- and they will blame that on the employer. I'd like to see at least some recognition that taking a paycheck obligates you to provide a fair days work, and to support your employer and company rather than trash it. The people who blame it all on the rich refuse to consider anything like that.
I haven't seen anything from the Economic Policy Committee praising the personal tax cuts. Sounds like more Trump Aministration B.S. Whose model? Cutting business taxes across the board will promote growth, but we could get more bang for our tax cutting buck with targeted tax cuts. You believe all this hype, do you? Yeah, Bush pushed the same nonsense and federal tax revenue didn't recover to 2000 levels until 2006. Very few economists support the Trump tax plan. Do you wonder why they don't?
of course it sounds like that to Trump haters who focus more on who they hate politically then taxes. Model evaluation is posted already in this thread, you're late to the party. No. But I believe change is better than our current system and although you like to ignore that they exist Hassett gave multiple examples of people agreeing with Trump's plan and many more examples online. What Bush did was not the same, and it's disingenuous or ignorant to say he did. I would rather a change that some support and some don't then to keep the same system. Especially when it's clear some will say it's terrible just because they hate Trump and Republicans.
I proposed a negative income tax, not an employer make work program. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax Employers need do only what they do best--make money. Employees still have to produce something if they want employment even with a negative income tax.
I've read the entire thread and there's nothing more than undocumented references to models. He made a bunch of unsupported claims. Bush cut taxes--what are you talking about? It took five years to get tax receipts back to 2000 levels, meanwhile spending rose at faster than the rate of inflation. Some of us say it's a bad plan because we believe it's a bad plan.
The CBO has scored this mess and it says that 20% of households making less than $75K will get tax increases. 1.5 trillion will be added to the debt Because it also includes an end to ACA mandates , premiums will increase and extra 10%
Only dishonest, ignorant trump apologists could defend this tax plan. Screw the middle class, senior citizens, and students so rich guys can get a tax break. What a band of feckless hypocrites.
not very close obviously disingenuous, the format does not allow for detailed explanation which he specifically pointed out. Must have conveniently missed that didn't ya I'm talking about exactly what I said. Read it. "What Bush did was not the same, and it's disingenuous or ignorant to say he did." You're entitled to your opinion. As are those who support it. I am not an economist and have not looked into the specific details, and many of those details the Congress still has to decide on. For now I keep an optimistic open mind because the system we have sucks.
Trying to pass Legislation thru reconciliation has made them thread the needle resulting in Flawed Laws. Too bad Congress doesn' t work with Dems to pass Bi Partisan Laws that help America while fixing problems. Yes it takes longer but the results are always better ,more fair and well received.
I will freely admit to that. I do my best to make myself invaluable to whoever I work for. And that is why they don't screw with me when it comes time to ask for raises and what not.
There are few people who have not been in a job where they noticed that some people were highly productive, while others dodged the work as much as possible. At one point years ago, I had hired a young woman to keep books, who was so competent and so ready to help with anything that I gave her a raise a month after hiring her. I think I gave her 4 in her first year- and apologized for not being able to afford even more, because she was worth it. So much of work environment issues are attitude.
