Posted on 09/10/2015 7:17:34 AM PDT by Jim W N
Bush's plan starts by slashing tax rates. He'd return to the top personal income tax rate of 28% that America had when Ronald Reagan left office. That top rate, by the way, was a true bipartisan reform designed in part by congressional Democrats like Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt. The rate has since migrated up to 42%, with many Democrats longing to tax the rich well above 50%.
Middle-class tax rates would fall to 10% for families with incomes up to $89,000 and to 25% for incomes up to $163,800. For singles, the thresholds are lower. But the thresholds are not high enough to ensure no one in the middle class gets pushed into higher tax brackets.
Corporate, capital gains and dividend taxes would all fall to 20% while the estate tax is eliminated. Bush also would provide immediate expensing of plant and equipment for businesses, which the Tax Foundation says is the most pro-growth tax fix to create jobs and higher incomes.
A new tax of 8.75% payable over 10 years would be created on overseas profits. This would reduce the tax incentive to keep foreign profits stored abroad and bring these funds back to America to be reinvested or distributed to shareholders.
Donald Trump has tapped into voter fear that America is losing jobs to foreign rivals. But if the goal is to bring jobs home, the best way to do so is to slash regulations and tax rates and keep the dollar strong — not to create trade barriers.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
So when a manufacturer moves his factory off shore and realizes a 5% reduction in production cost does that 5% get passed on to the retailer? If so, does the retailer pass on that 5% to the consumer?
Or, does that 5% go to the stock holder of the manufacturer and the bottom line? Well?
Having received a gracious, and positive, response from Steve Moore to a letter I wrote advocating a capital gains tax revenue cap - he affirmed that it would "have a significant unlocking effect” on the economy - I am biased.But the only thing wrong with Steve Forbes’ plan, AFAIK, was his failure to sell its signal virtue when challenged. He was doing fine until a bunch of realtors suddenly balked at the “no deductibility of interest” provision in his plan. Forbes tried to say it didn’t matter because his flat tax was so much of a tax cut. Which was not an entirely meretricious argument, but was far from being the strongest argument available to him. The reality was that, because of the non-taxable nature of interest income under Forbes’ flat tax, you as a borrower have a signal advantage not available under the present code. The value of that advantage would be exactly equal to the benefit of the “missing” tax deductibility.
What is that advantage? Simply that, in borrowing for your mortgage, you are selling a tax-free bond. And as any investor knows, the interest rate you can get on a tax-free bond is lower than what you can get when you buy a bond which is not tax-free. Mathematically the difference in the expected interest rate is, other things being equal, equal to the amount of tax you have to pay on the taxable bond. So, under a flat tax regime in which the borrower and the lender both are in the same tax bracket, the amount which mortgage deductibility would have saved you as a borrower is exactly the same as the amount the lender saves because of the "tax-free bond” nature of the income stream you as a borrower are selling.
The upshot is that under the Forbes plan, everyone who has a mortgage would immediately roll their mortgage over to get a lower interest rate. The only difference under the Forbes plan - once you have transitioned in that way - is that you don’t have to file paperwork with the IRS to document your interest payment - your benefit gets hardwired into your mortgage, and that is the end of the paperwork. Nobody loses out on the value of the deduction because, for whatever reason, they don’t itemize deductions. That helps the little guy most of all; the big kids will have their ducks in a row to be able to profit from the deduction.
. . . and that is on top of the fact that Forbes’ plan was “a flat tax that’s a tax cut.”
Hey nit-wit. Business advantage. It’s what it’s all about. Self-interest. Entrepreneurialism. It creates opportunity, expands the economy and creates wealth. Voluntary cooperation versus command and control.
They didn’t teach you that in your Marxist School of Economics which is why your Marxist countries are so impoverished.
Think I’m done trying to teach you anything.
Good luck.
Fixed. Go Trump go!
A jerk like you couldn't teach fish how to swim.
As far as economics go ll I have to is look back over 40+ years of gloBULLism, that is all the teaching I need.
You’re a fairly toxic guy there whatever your name is, substituting reason with attack and name-calling. Kind of a waste. I’ll do my best to avoid you in the future.
“In 1970—still a Democrat—Kudlow joined Joseph Duffey’s “New Politics” senatorial campaign in Connecticut. Duffey was a leading anti-war politician during the Vietnam war era. Kudlow, working with Yale University student Bill Clinton as well as many other rising young Democratic students, was known as a “brilliant” district coordinator.
“Kudlow worked on the U.S. Senate campaign of Joseph Duffey, along with Bill Clinton, John Podesta, and Michael Medved, another future conservative, and in 1976 he worked on the U.S. Senate campaign of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, along with Tim Russert, against Conservative Party incumbent James L. Buckley, brother of William F. Buckley, Jr.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kudlow#cite_ref-6
“I prefer Steve Forbes and Art Laffer.”
Laffer admits that he voted for Obama. He says he voted for Clinton twice. He insisted that there was no housing bubble, lost a public bet with Peter Schiff over it.
Laffer cultivates the idea that he was Reagan’s chief economist, never corrects interviewers. The truth is he never worked for Reagan, he was already in private practice during the Reagan years. His sole contribution during the Reagan administration was as one member of a large outside advisory group.
It wiped out 30 years of tax planning and screwed the economy.
What are you? A tax planner? Tax planners are government-mandated parasites.
All I know is I owed less in taxes, thanks to RR. And that's what counts!
Oh. And the economy grew. Much faster than today.
Manufacturers are manufacturers.
Domestic manufacturers should only be entitled to win if they are better, not because central_va made a law.
I hadn't paid taxes since 1976 with a 6 figure income every year and have to pay taxes every year since with an income under $50K in each of the years.
That tax increase stopped all residential construction and by 1992 those animals had moved into commercial with their illegal alien help and I was forced to close a 57 year old business.
And that's how it should work. Americans should not need tax planners to prosper.
The Bush plan is the same old RINO plan of every election :
Promise conservatism before the election, cozy up to Democrats after the election.
Shortly after that he left the State for 2 days and had the Lt. Governor sign the withholding legislation.
Reagan had already learned about Laffer's Supply Side ideas, and Gilder's book just cemented his views. The whole 30% across the board tax cut was modeled on Laffer's concepts and RR had read extensively the ideas behind Prop 13, which Laffer helped design.
So no he didn't serve in the White House, but his influence was profound. Trump is wise to listen to Laffer.
Go Trump go!
Trump must really get under your skin.....
Dittos.
Trump must really get under your skin he is anti trade abuse and is for using retaliatory tariffs. Go Trump go!
This will be the last thing I say to you. As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about. All you have to do is look at my history about to see I am a Trump supporter. But unlike you and certain others on this site, when I am for someone, I don’t go deaf, blind, and dumb or end up like your self portrait on post 50. Your “free traitor” socialist dogma (freedom=treason) and mindless sheeple mentality explains your self portrait.
When I expressed these things to Trump and his re-election organization, they told me they will consider these things. I believe it because, although Trump is incorrect about some things, he’s teachable. That is more than I can say for mindless robots like yourself who don’t really help in the long run. America needs thoughtful, educated people who care about true freedom, not robotic followers of politicians and government programs. We have enough of them already.
More than I was going to say to you. Leave it at that.
Rots a ruck and have a good life.
No more Buses. We’re Bushed.
The point here is for economic recovery, Trump needs to put more emphasis on tax cuts and abolishing minimum wage, useless, dead-end regulations, and union protection.
Too bad you aren't. You are brainwashed, hopelessly so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.