Republican Tax Plan Revealed

[Kujako]

Logic here is flawed. Just because you disagree with the way leaders are running something doesn't mean you have to leave the group. If I'm an American and I disagree with the President or Congress... I don't just leave the USA and stop being an American. I vote to change it or get them to change things.

You leave every-time you don't get your way?

But you're not doing that. You're still voting Republican, aren't you.

[Breccia]

Collins claims to be undecided on the tax cut for the rich.

Her requirements appear to be promises from the GOP and Trump that they won't cut Medicare (at least, not by much) and stabilize the ACA in upcoming bills.

To give her full credit where it's due, she did say she wanted to see what comes out of conference. But, she's pledging her vote based on the strength of the word of people, including Trump, that promised a tax cut for the middle class -- which this isn't. Obviously, Trump and the GOP will promise her whatever she wants to hear, just to get her name on the "yes" line. Nothing prevents them from going back on their word.

- - - Updated - - -

A new USA Today poll puts the tax cut for the rich at 32% approval, 48% disapproval.

Also known as "5 percent less popular than Trump".

[Felya]

Logic here is flawed. Just because you disagree with the way leaders are running something doesn't mean you have to leave the group. If I'm an American and I disagree with the President or Congress... I don't just leave the USA and stop being an American. I vote to change it or get them to change things.

You leave every-time you don't get your way?

You being American is defined by the location of your home. You party is defined by your personal assertion. Me telling you that I’m Chines is not a mater of opinion, it means I’m lying. Your logic is flawed... sorry...

[Orlong]

I am certain that thousands upon thousands of people will be asking that come 2018 after the tax cut for the rich passes. H&R Block is going to have a lot to do, including answering those questions.

If they wouldve passed the plan Trump wanted (your tax return could be done on a postcard) then there wouldnt be a need for H&R Block or the millions of CPAs that people have to waste thousands of dollars on to do their taxes because people cant understand the complex forms

[Nellise]

If they wouldve passed the plan Trump wanted (your tax return could be done on a postcard) then there wouldnt be a need for H&R Block or the millions of CPAs that people have to waste thousands of dollars on to do their taxes because people cant understand the complex forms

Can you post a link to where he outlined exactly how this would work?

[Trifle]

If they wouldve passed the plan Trump wanted (your tax return could be done on a postcard) then there wouldnt be a need for H&R Block or the millions of CPAs that people have to waste thousands of dollars on to do their taxes because people cant understand the complex forms

Not sure if he actually wanted that or he just said it because it sounded good to his voters. Like the healthcare that was going to be better in every way to Obamacare, and we all saw how that turned out.

[Breccia]

Can you post a link to where he outlined exactly how this would work?

He doesn't need to.

First of all, the idea behind deductions is for the government to either encourage certain behavior, or to make it less of a penalty. That's why things like having kids is a deduction, but buying a dune buggy is not. The process is debatable, but a "postcard" tax would pretty much get rid of that encouragement for things like charitable giving, paying high state and local taxes which also go to services so the federal dollar does not, and paying your medical bills.

But most importantly, Trump was basically asking for a flat tax. Remember, a postcard leaves nearly no room for things like brackets. Since our current tax rates are progressive (more and more when you become rich), and a flat tax is not, if the revenue gained was the same before and after the new flat tax would be required to increase taxes on the poor, and reduce taxes on the rich. It's mathematically impossible otherwise, if the revenue gained was the same. Obviously if you choose to tank federal income, you can do pretty much any mix/match, but of course, you tank federal income, so the deficit/debt go up.

The simplicity Trump was asking for, would help a rich person with few deductions (see also: Trump's charity shut down) and screw a poor person and/or a person with a lot of deductions (like parents with kids in college).

Granted, that's happening anyhow, but the simplicity Trump asked for would have mandated it.

[LaserSharkDFB]

If they wouldve passed the plan Trump wanted (your tax return could be done on a postcard) then there wouldnt be a need for H&R Block or the millions of CPAs that people have to waste thousands of dollars on to do their taxes because people cant understand the complex forms

Your first mistake was believing anything Trump said during the campaign without a notarized written contract.

[Masark]

Your first mistake was believing anything Trump said during the campaign without a notarized written contract.

The second mistake would be believing even that.

[Logwyn]

But you're not doing that. You're still voting Republican, aren't you.

President generally never Republican or Democrat. Congress which candidate I feel is best same with local elections. I'm not a sheep that votes some party line.

- - - Updated - - -

You being American is defined by the location of your home. You party is defined by your personal assertion. Me telling you that I’m Chines is not a mater of opinion, it means I’m lying. Your logic is flawed... sorry...

Nah. My logic is sound you just fail to see it. Just because some dude in Washington says Republicans should be XYZ doesn't mean that the Republican or Democrat or whatever party in the local election is a bad choice and shouldn't be voted for. Voting party lines is stupid, ignorant, and exactly what they want you to do in Washington.

If party X puts forth a good piece of legislation for everyone simply voting against it or not supporting it "because the other party suggested it" borders on criminal behavior.

But hey keep following party lines and not looking at the facts and whats best. Its exactly what the Democrats and Republicans want you to do. Divide us and keep us all just being one side or the other. Good way to keep us under control.

[Dontrike]

If they wouldve passed the plan Trump wanted (your tax return could be done on a postcard) then there wouldnt be a need for H&R Block or the millions of CPAs that people have to waste thousands of dollars on to do their taxes because people cant understand the complex forms

That idea was not Trump's. That idea has been floating around for years, in fact Ronald Reagen and Obama pushed for that very thing. Please don't give Trump the credit for something that far better presidents have tried to accomplish but couldn't, especially when we know that when Trump does something he'll end up butt fumbling the whole thing and it will end up far worse than anyone could ever have imagined.

[Felya]

Nah. My logic is sound you just fail to see it. Just because some dude in Washington says Republicans should be XYZ doesn't mean that the Republican or Democrat or whatever party in the local election is a bad choice and shouldn't be voted for. Voting party lines is stupid, ignorant, and exactly what they want you to do in Washington.

Yes, it does, that’s what a political party is. Telling a Republican to not vote on party lines, is idiotic. If they wanted to vote for a different party, they wouldn’t be called Republican. Republican is not a state of mind, the party platform is literally dictated by their heads in Washington. Don’t want people voting party lines? While pretending a Republican is not defined by their party authority? Wtf?

If party X puts forth a good piece of legislation for everyone simply voting against it or not supporting it "because the other party suggested it" borders on criminal behavior.

Then why are you defending people who would vote for a pedophile, just because he is Republican? You are not making any sense... a Republican is someone who belongs to the Republican Party and will vote republican, otherwise, they wouldn’t be republican.

But hey keep following party lines and not looking at the facts and whats best. Its exactly what the Democrats and Republicans want you to do. Divide us and keep us all just being one side or the other. Good way to keep us under control.

What the fuck? People who claim to be Republican, are dividing them selfs. I don’t even understand your point... a person that is Republican, is not an independent... wtf?

- - - Updated - - -

Logic here is flawed. Just because you disagree with the way leaders are running something doesn't mean you have to leave the group.

President generally never Republican or Democrat. Congress which candidate I feel is best same with local elections. I'm not a sheep that votes some party line.

Sound logic... make up your mind... are they sheep or are they independent thinkers?

[cubby]

so your going for intellectual stupidity. got ya.

Says the guy who can't even spell "you're" correctly. Lol.

Seriously though, it's an easy line to draw and not cross. The DNC is making that stand. The GOP is crossing on a daily basis, and then doubling down when people notice. It's beyond horrific. We are literally about to elect a known pedophile into the U.S. Senate.

But you keep going with your little empty statements (like the one above, spelling notwithstanding) and scoring internet-points. Tired of #winning yet?

#deplorable45

[Heladys]

We are literally about to elect a known pedophile into the U.S. Senate.

A known pedophile who has stated that every amendment after the 10th has been wrong-headed and damaging to the country, and if that wasn't enough, called out the repeal of slavery in particular for special derision.

[Breccia]

Hey remember that time the Treasury promised to give its analysis, showing how the tax cut for the rich will pay for itself?

Funny story. Even they admit it won't.

And they also don't think we'll see 3% growth. Yes, 2.9% isn't 3%, it's a technicality but it still counts.

The Treasury's promised but long overdue, in-depth, highly cited HAHAHA just kidding it's one page.

[Edge-]

Hey remember that time the Treasury promised to give its analysis, showing how the tax cut for the rich will pay for itself?

Funny story. Even they admit it won't.

And they also don't think we'll see 3% growth. Yes, 2.9% isn't 3%, it's a technicality but it still counts.

The Treasury's promised but long overdue, in-depth, highly cited HAHAHA just kidding it's one page.

That's...fucking pathetic. Seriously, the quality of work the Trump administration and Republican party is doing right now with regards to their reports, analysis, and legislation drafting wouldn't fly in a damn community college, much less a 4 year undergrad college.

I wish I could have gotten away with handing in work of this low quality when I was in college, I could have slacked off even more.

[Breccia]

That's...fucking pathetic.

Indeed.

Trump administration explains details of how tax plan would pay for itself, immediately gets attacked for assumptions

For months, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has said that the Republican tax plan wouldn't add a penny to the national debt, pledging that more than 100 people in his agency were “working around the clock” to calculate how much additional growth would come from the plan. On Monday, the Treasury Department released the fruit of those efforts: a one-page document asserting that the $1.5 trillion plan would generate more than enough to pay for itself.

The proposal relies on two big -- and controversial -- assumptions: that it will generate economic activity well in excess of what independent analysts project, and that the rest of the administration's economic agenda, including regulatory reform, infrastructure spending and an overhaul of the welfare system, will take effect.

In the analysis, Treasury's Office of Tax Policy says the U.S. economy would increase from 2.2 percent annual growth to 2.9 percent annual growth every year for the next 10 years. (The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is projecting just 1.9 percent growth per year.)

Treasury says half of the increased growth would come from the massive cuts to business taxes. The tax plan proposes cutting the corporate rate from 35 percent to 20 percent.

The office attributes the rest of the increased growth to multiple factors, including more infrastructure spending, welfare reform, an overhaul of the individual tax code, and lower rates for business owners who pay their income taxes through the individual code. As the one-page analysis says, “We expect the other half to come from changes to pass-through taxation and individual tax reform, as well as a combination of regulatory reform, infrastructure development and welfare reform as proposed in the [Trump] Administration's Fiscal Year 2018 budget.”

Objection, your Honor, assumes facts not in evidence. Infrastructure Week turned into American Nazis and the KKK week and we've seen basically nothing since, other than both the House and Senate tax cut for the rich attacking the bonds infrastructure companies use to fund projects. Welfare reform is waiting on the tax cut for the rich to pass. And the individual cuts the Treasury cites expire in under 10 years.

Treasury estimates that, all told, the tax code changes and other policy efforts would lift economic growth so much that it would generate $1.8 trillion in new revenue over 10 years, as a bigger economy leads to bigger tax bills.

It is an analysis far different from other groups.

A recent analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), Congress's nonpartisan scorekeeper, predicted that the Senate tax bill would add about 0.1 percent more a year to growth over the next decade, far less than what Treasury says. JCT took into account the economic effects of the tax cuts to individual and business taxes, but not other policy changes advocated by the administration such as welfare reform.

The JCT says the bill's total cost would remain $1 trillion after considering growth effects.

Many economists and tax policy experts slammed the Treasury memo as half-baked. There was no supporting documentation with the statement, making it impossible for independent economists to be able to re-create Treasury's work. Independent analysts have forecast that the bill would add $500 billion to nearly $2 trillion to the debt.

“Treasury has released a one-page [analysis] which will be used by tax cut advocates to claim that the tax cut pays for itself. It's a joke and no substitute for the career staff running the full macro model they have to analyze effects,” New York University tax law professor David Kamin tweeted.

Some Treasury staff members in the Obama administration don't think Treasury ran a model at all. They note that the 2.9 percent growth estimate is what President Trump's budget assumed in the spring.

The nation's leading think tanks that analyze tax and budget policies have all released detailed analyses showing that the tax bill would not fully pay for itself.

In a new analysis of the Senate GOP tax bill that was also released Monday, the Tax Policy Center found that the bill would still cost $1.5 trillion, even after taking into account economic growth. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model predicts that the tax measure would still add $1.5 trillion to $1.8 trillion to the national debt after factoring in growth.

The Tax Foundation, which supports the GOP tax plan, says it would cost about $500 billion. Treasury is by far the most optimistic of all.

“Even with assumptions favorable to economic growth, the Senate [bill] still increases debt by over $1.5 trillion over the next decade,” says economist Kent Smetters, director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model.

"Wharton, didn't Trump go th--"

Yeeeeeeeeeep.

Senior administration officials said that different economists could come to different conclusions, but that they wanted to offer some transparency in their perspective. The analysis states, “We acknowledge that some economists predict different growth rates.”

One Republican senator -- Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) -- voted against the tax bill because of concerns about how much money it would add to the deficit. The White House has tried to assure other GOP lawmakers that the Joint Committee on Taxation is wrong and that the bill would not increase the debt.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the analysis “fake math” that shows Republicans are “grasping at straws.”

So much bolding for so much emphasis.

That's right: the Treasury can't even get the tax cut for the rich to balance without blatantly making shit up.

- - - Updated - - -

For added fun, the GOP tax cut for the rich might violate international treaties.

Finance ministers from Europe’s five biggest economies warned U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin that the tax plan currently wending its way through Congress may contravene international treaties on double taxation and hurt trade flows.

“The inclusion of certain less conventional international tax provisions could contravene the U.S.’s double taxation treaties and may risk having a major distortive impact on international trade,” the ministers from Germany, France, the U.K., Italy and Spain said in a letter to Mnuchin released Monday.

The Republican-led effort to reform the U.S. tax code, which would cut the corporate rate to 20 percent from 35 percent, has caused jitters beyond Europe’s borders, with Chinese officials expressing worries that a sweeping policy shift could negatively impact domestic markets. Finance ministers, who discussed the issue over breakfast last week, pointed to the excise tax, base erosion and the Senate proposal for “foreign-derived income” as specific areas of concern.

So, not just the biggest markets in Europe, but also China the biggest market on the planet.

The US Census puts China, France, UK, Germany, and Italy as five of our top 15 trade partners.

[Shadee]

Seems like a good plan. They need to tax the lower brackets a little more and give less deductions for kids/dependents.

[Mittens]

When you try to address tax evasion and they accuse you of protectionism.

[Breccia]

The JCT released this 12-page report, that's 12 times the length of the Treasury report, on the tax cut for the rich.

It sounds...familiar. I know it was released today, but the result -- $1 trillion to deficit, $400 billion lower than anyone else says -- sounds like the last report they've had. But, even so, it's evidence that nothing important's changed there: still adds to deficit, still doesn't pay for itself.

- - - Updated - - -

Business Insider, with no sense of irony, wrote an article on the Treasury's one-page report that is longer than the Treasury's one-page report.

The Treasury Department on Monday released a one-page report arguing that the Republican tax bill's cost would eventually be paid for by economic growth, but it triggered backlash from experts who said it contained serious errors and significant assumptions.

The report from the Treasury concluded that the GOP tax bill, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, would be paid for by increased economic growth that would result from the bill's policy changes and additional actions proposed by the Trump administration.

The one-page analysis claims the tax bill and other economic policies would raise $1.8 trillion in revenue. That would make up for the $1.5 trillion that the tax legislation is projected to add to the federal deficit.

"It's okay, Mr. Mnuchin, we're not here to arrest you today."

The analysis comes with several caveats

The Treasury report assumes that gross domestic product, the most widely used measure of a country's economy, would increase by an average of 2.9% annually in the US over the next 10 years.

That rate, taken from President Donald Trump's proposed budget, is much greater than the 2.2% annual GDP growth rate the Treasury's Office of Tax Policy expected over that period before Trump took office. The growth rate from the budget assumes not just that the tax bill and some other Trump administration proposals will pass, but that the policies will add nearly a percentage point to the US's annual GDP growth.

"Treasury expects approximately half of this 0.7% increase in growth to come from changes to corporate taxation," the report said. "We expect the other half to come from changes to pass-through taxation and individual tax reform, as well as from a combination of regulatory reform, infrastructure development, and welfare reform as proposed in the Administration's Fiscal Year 2018 budget."

The report does not back up the Trump administration claim that the tax bill would "pay for itself." Rather, it says the assumed growth rate from a budget that includes boosts from a yet-to-be-released infrastructure package and other policy changes would be enough to make up the lost revenue from the tax bill.

Scott Greenberg, a senior analyst at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation, compared the assumption of additional policy changes to a manufacturing company.

He tweeted: "Manufacturing company: Hey look, this new plant in Tennessee will definitely turn a profit, if we count the revenues we assume we're going to get from our factory in Kentucky, which we haven't built yet."

"That's good, Mr. Trump. Just pretend you're squeezing more money out of the poor and middle class."

It conflicts with most independent analyses

The Treasury report conflicts with analyses from nearly every independent, nonpartisan group as well as from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which operates as an official scorekeeper for Congress.

An analysis from the University of Pennsylvania's Penn-Wharton Budget Model released Monday said the Senate version of the tax bill would boost GDP by only about half a percentage point to 1 percentage point total after 10 years. The model said the bill would add $1.5 trillion to $1.8 trillion in new deficits over that time frame "even under assumptions favorable to economic growth."

The JCT estimated that he tax bill would boost the economy by eight-tenths of a percentage point over the first 10 years after the bill was passed and generate $1 trillion in new deficits even when factoring in economic growth.

"Treasury has released a one pager which will be used by tax cut advocates to claim that the tax cut pays for itself," tweeted David Kamin, a New York University law professor and former economic adviser to President Barack Obama. "It's a joke and no substitute for the career staff running the full macro model they have to analyze effects."

An 'embarrassing joke'

Jacob Leibenluft, a senior adviser at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former deputy director of the National Economic Council, had a similar reaction.

"This document is a tacit admission that Treasury's career tax experts have no analysis showing the tax plan pays for itself — but written in a way to confuse people who can't or won't read between the lines," he tweeted.

Jason Furman, a Harvard Kennedy professor who previously served as the Council of Economic Advisors chairman, called the report an "embarrassing joke."

Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, tweeted "no one should believe this study."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also blasted the report in a statement, saying it used "fake math."

"The latest Treasury 'analysis' is nothing more than one page of fake math," Schumer said. "It’s clear the White House and Republicans are grasping at straws to prove the unprovable and garner votes for a bill that nearly every single independent analysis has concluded will blow up the deficit and generate almost no additional economic activity to make up for it."

- - - Updated - - -

Link to the Wharton study that, like the other independent studies, say the tax cut for the rich is...a tax cut for the rich, will add $1.5T to the debt even with favorable economic growth, adds $1.8T to the debt with realistic growth (0.5% to 1%), and the boost to the GDP shrinks over time. Basically, like everyone else who isn't Mnuchin says, the tax cut for the rich objectively doesn't pay for itself, and neither is it realistic help for the poor and middle classes.