Tax Reform?

Republicans are looking for other ways to squeeze more dollars out of the bill.

On Friday, Mr. Brady released an amended version of the tax bill that will reduce the value of the income tax cuts for individuals by $90 billion over the course of a decade and slightly shrink the estimated cost of the legislation.

The amended bill includes a technical change that immediately adopts a revised measure of inflation, known as “chained CPI”, which would change how inflation is calculated, thus slowing the speed at which tax brackets grow with inflation.

As a result, Americans would more quickly find themselves in higher marginal tax brackets — jumping from a 12 percent top bracket to 25 percent, for example — as their incomes increase.

The chained measure would also slow the value growth of some inflation-adjusted tax benefits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.

So, since most the CEOs who did not raise their hands to Gary Cohn’s question “about capital spending in USA due to tax cuts” they are also anti-trump? :slight_smile:

This is a interesting way to debate though. Here’s how the logic goes → “I don’t agree with you and hence you have a hidden agenda & anti me, although I am weak on facts.”

for sure… we will soon find out which direction.

1 Like

The corporate tax rates in USA is high, but not as high as it is claimed.

Look at page 17, Exhibit 7

I can’t remember which thread it was in but someone posted an analysis of the tax changes. Corporations would save on tax rates. However, the eliminated deductions and credits more than offset the lost revenue due to lower rates. Corporations as a whole would pay higher more in taxes.

I mixed two threads here into one, asnwering Sheriff and Roy321.

First, Roy321 statement ( corporate tax rates in USA is high) is valid and every one knows.

Sheriff’s bold highlighted are correct, USA manufacturing shift will be very slow or there is no major change.

The basic fact is “If something is cheaper to make it China or elsewhere”, companies are buying same like individual.

Here, I provide the same example of Apple. Iphone price is appx $250 at china, sold here for $1000. But, Apple Ireland has manufacturing unit which signs a contract for $250 with Chinese company and exports to USA at $750 making $500 profit

This intermediate manufacturing unit is paying corporate tax rate at 17.5% to 22.5% rate. This is completely legal and these are tax haven opportunities.

I am just showing apple example as this is well known case known to all Senators, House of Reps and every president ! There have been many instances, Tim Cook or Steve Jobs were grilled by the Senate/House committee.

Like this many big corps are hoarding cash abroad to the tune of 4.5 Trillions to 8 Trillions. Day by Day, many corporate are going for intermediate tax havens like the way manufacturing moved to China.

Such practices will be stopped going forward, as they feel USA itself a tax haven state, and corp money will flow back to USA. No company is going to keep the cash idle, but will make use of it to grow further. This will add long term benefit to country economy and kill the tax havens abroad.

Unfortunately, no individuals will realize the impact to USA economy as this is not direct benefit to them. There may be chances that our economy may go through recession in between, but we will see companies coming back to USA. If the tax is reduced, we will all see the growth when Trump leaves White House.

This is almost the same way no one understands “What obama made last 8 years” to recover the economy from brink.

In future, Trump will be criticized the same way people criticize Obama, but both are Strong, Adamant, Dedicated and having long term vision about America. US Citizens are lucky to have such contrasting personalities to lead from two different parties.

2 Likes

I’m not against lowering corporate taxes & I’ll actually benefit out of it(stock market gains).

Question is, will the shortfall in taxes be revenue neutral in the future. The past evidence, so far says no. However, we can always dream & wish for the flying horses?

Obama also proposed lowering corporate tax rates, but not on the backs of middle class earners(bay area standards) or by lowering estate taxes on the minuscule at the top(which includes the guy who hasn’t released his tax returns).

1 Like

Dude are you going to run for office? :slight_smile: I mean … on this forum(if there is an open position that is).

If the tax is reduced, we will all see the growth when Trump leaves White House.

The normal person would believe that, but so far, we have seen here, the berating and trashing of the Obama’s economy that up to this point has made it to the last minute his budget was in place. His actions had an over lasting result. Whoever is in the oval office needs to create legislation to indicate and put a mark that this, from now on, is his achievement since he is not inheriting a bad economy

In future, Trump will be criticized the same way people criticize Obama, but both are Strong, Adamant, Dedicated and having long term vision about America. US Citizens are lucky to have such contrasting personalities to lead from two different parties.

Except one was looking out for the majority of the people when the other is all for himself and has trashed the legacy of the American freedom by attacking the press, praising our enemies. Leaders recognize the achievements of others. From that mold, from that tool, or instrument used by former leaders, he or she will take the best and discard the rest. Not this time, we see the destruction of anything, our environment’s destruction coming our way, to the point he dumped an EO forbidding the rights of people to bring their spoils after going to kill innocent animals in Africa. The places deemed to be filled by intelligent people are occupied by ignorant and paying for their positions people who, in one instance or other were aiming at destroying such agencies now they command.

Money is not the end of all things. But money, taxpayer’s money is used to end the healthcare of those who trusted their leaders.

Do you really think 90% of Americans are going to feel sorry for those in the bay area who are “middle class” by bay area standards? Hillary would have raised taxes on those same people. People need to realize raising taxes on the top 1% doesn’t solve our budget problem. You can literally tax them 90% and not solve the budget problems. Politically, we can’t raise taxes on the bottom half who are paying 3% effective income tax rate. It’d anger far too many voters.
That means tax increases will hit the top 20% who are already paying 87% of the income tax bill.

Besides, I thought all good democrats were willing to pay higher taxes to help the greater good. Hillary won the vote in the bay area by a huge margin. Who’d everyone think she was talking about when she said she wanted to make the rich pay their fair share?

1 Like

Most of these Americans live in states where they take in more from the Federal budget than they give in it. So, yes they wouldn’t feel sorry, since they are getting even more now.

So, republicans are exempt from this?

All good democrats are ready to pay for higher taxes NOT to subsidize the estate taxes of the rich.

1 Like

Oh. Not a good idea to raise taxes, but OK to cut them so our debt is not paid for by the taxes we are cutting. God, I am going crazy with this but if, but then, but democrats, never but republicans.

This is guess work. In 2 to 6 years, it becomes revenue neutral to the country, but not to individual people.

If I read him right, Trump is not for middle class, but focus on low income earners. This is his vote bank.

Obama targeted middle class mainly, but also made benefits to low class. High earners, 250k or above, were hit by him.

I enjoy the democracy and the commitment of people !

See Trump is a billionaire. he can enjoy the life lavishly with whatever money he made. But, he sits as president (at retirement age with plenty of wealth) and pulls everyone, trying to address in his own way. In fact, next 3 or 7 years are tough years going through all the challenges.

He said he was a billionaire. $10 B he said.

Reports say it was 10%

Which means, he…oh…wait, I said that before, he is a liar.

hmm ok.

What challenges?.. by creating challenges…& resorting to tax cuts… when…

The current unemployment in 4.2% & the underemployment rate is 8.3% which is lower than the pre recession(2007) underemployment rate of 8.4%

Specifically, the Act is committed to an unemployment rate of no more than 3% for persons aged 20 or over, and not more than 4% for persons aged 16 or over (from 1983 onwards)

I think most republicans want smaller government, less social programs, and lower taxes. Democrats want the social programs which are what’s driving the increase in government spending in percent of GDP terms. Any program where costs increase faster than inflation inherently unsustainable. We’ve averaged 17.5% of GDP in tax revenue since WW2. We’ve had top tax rates of 70% and 90% during that time. It didn’t raise more tax revenue as a percent of GDP.

The estate tax generates $19B of revenue per year which is 0.6% of the total. It gets people fired up, but it’s not a meaningful revenue source. I honestly don’t care much about it either way.

To the 1% people → Give it up if it’s so inconsequential to you.

1 Like

We were actually having a surplus when Clinton was president. Every Republican administration in recent memory has added to the deficit.

3 Likes

I honestly don’t care enough about it either way. It’s not a needle mover.

@sheriff Don’t forget it was republican congress that forced spending cuts and welfare reforms. Also, we had one of the biggest bull markets every which increased tax revenue. You should look at historical deficits. Pre 1932, we only had them for our major wars. Post 1932, democrats got a strange hold on congress and deficits became the new normal. I don’t think people realize that pre-WW2 federal spending was <5% of GDP.

How would those tax havens respond? They can’t be sitting around waiting for their doom?

Current tax reform no longer has the foolish components that I totally disagree with.

USA as a whole would benefit, is hard to tell who would win, most importantly would there be losers? Obviously, Californians and New Yorkers would lose because can’t claim back state income and property tax (more than $10k) but won’t these same folks gain because they own assets like rentals and stock equities?

Going forward, I have to wonder how California and New York would respond. Reduce state income tax?
How would companies respond? Increase pay to compensate for non claimable state income tax?
How about those out-of-state techies? Would they be even more hesitant to come to SV?

Exactly this, you hit the nail !

Now, stocks are going crazily except temporary one or two days set back like last two days. Otherwise, they keep going up and up. Low unemployment coupled with crazy growth of stocks, real estate, people spending…etc.

This is going in bubble mode. Meanwhile, FED is hiking the rates. Any rate increase apply pressure on economy and artificial burst will happen.

If that burst happens before his next election, it is an issue for him. Even if he wins, he needs to bring back the economy.

Trump’s Honey Moon will be over when Economy enters to correction mode !