Posted on 12/06/2017 6:16:56 AM PST by Kaslin
This week, Republicans in the Senate finally passed their long-awaited tax reform plan. It lowers individual income tax rates across the board, although it does claw back some government revenue in the form of elimination of state and local tax deductions. It drops corporate tax rates as well. It is, in other words, a significant but not atypical Republican tax cut designed to boost economic growth by allowing Americans to keep more of their own money.
The tax cut will almost certainly increase the deficit, however. Even with dynamic scoring -- the assumption that the economy will grow at a faster clip thanks to tax cuts -- the tax cuts could lead to $1 trillion in lower revenue through 2027. This has led some conservatives to sour on tax reform altogether, rightly saying that Republicans were, until a few months ago, complaining incessantly about former President Obama's blowout deficits and the burgeoning national debt, which now stands at a cool $20.5 trillion. That doesn't include long-term unfunded liabilities, which are slated to bring the debt to some $70 to 75 trillion in coming decades.
So, which is more important: cutting deficits or cutting taxes?
The answer, in the long run, is obvious: cutting deficits. Deficits impoverish future generations; they undermine the credibility of our financial commitments; they prevent us from fulfilling promises we have already made to our own citizens. There are already millions of Americans who will never receive Social Security in the amount they have been promised; there are already millions of Americans unborn who will spend their lives paying off the commitments made by others for political gain.
At the same time, were we to raise taxes to pay off our debts, we would enervate our population and inure citizens to high taxes. Citizens of European states are used to insanely high tax rates; the impetus for spending cuts based on desire for lower taxes disappears after years of habituation to those tax rates and unsustainable government benefits. Europeans are used to the very social programs that continue to bankrupt them despite high tax rates; they're not clamoring to cut programs based on their distaste for those tax rates.
This puts American politicians in somewhat of a Catch-22. If they stump for spending cuts, they're cast as uncaring and cruel; if they stump for tax increases to pay for those spending cuts, they're cast as uncaring and cruel. Thus, the deficit continues to grow.
So, what should Republicans do about it? They ought to cut taxes, and then they ought to acknowledge that cuts are necessary to keep taxes low. Let Americans get used to keeping their own money. Let them understand that services aren't free. Then, be honest about the costs associated with big government programs.
In the end, both Democrats and Republicans will have to face a simple truth: It's either government cuts or bust. There's no reason for Republicans to give away their only leverage -- the taste of the public for a dynamic economy based on individuals retaining their earnings -- in order to shore up programs Democrats will only work to expand.
We need common sense, comprehensive Spending Control.
Stopped reading right there. The rest must be BS if based on this false premise.
Didn’t the Pengagon say they couldn’t account for some 5 trillion dollars a while back?
Didn’t Hillary’s state dept “lose” a Staggering amount a while back?
Didn’t the IRS “lose” a huge amount in the recent past?
Isn’t it reported that fraud is costing HUNDREDS of billions a year in taxes.
Accountability would be great too, along with cuts
“The tax cut will almost certainly increase the deficit, however. Even with dynamic scoring — the assumption that the economy will grow at a faster clip thanks to tax cuts — the tax cuts could lead to $1 trillion in lower revenue through 2027.“ This is a lie followed by a prediction from a bunch that has NEVER BEEN RIGHT.
Income and spending are two different things. Under Reaganomics income to the Treasury doubled. In 7 years (not counting his first year in office) that would be an average increase of close to 10%. The Democrats increased spending more than that. I was around then and the most repeated phrase was “if we can put a man on the moon we can surely (fill in the spending)”.
The somewhat inappropriately named “tax cuts” are not tax cuts at all, they are tax RATE reductions. The actual revenue to the Treasury will INCREASE, a correlation that seems to be absolutely counter-intuitive to many people, including the Congressional Budget Office, seemingly incapable of scoring the effects dynamically rather than the static model they use.
Remember what started the real foment in the American Revolution - it was taxes imposed from afar by an unresponsive legislature and King.
Why not both?
The Feds need to control spending.
We deserve to keep our money.
Convention of States / balanced budget amendment
Cut the government by 90%.
Agreed in principle. In conjunction with corporate rate cut, the flow of money would reverse and the deficit would decline.
However, if you kept reading, he nails it in regards to cutting government. Without cutting largesse - government jobs & entitlements alike, meaning outlays and agencies - this is only a shell game.
Lowering taxes increases federal revenue which decreases the deficit. Cutting spending also decreases the deficit. But the two are not related.
I did nothing of the sort and your intransigence reflects the lack of political will to move in the opposite direction.
Revenue generates government growth; decreasing government reduces spending.
I did not link the two, as you state, but the two are also not mutually-exclusive. Without addressing both, this truly is a shell game.
This is not about money; it is about motivation to relinquish control & power. .02
How about cutting spending in half? Could that be important?
Good grief we are screwed up.
I think he is saying the deficit/tax cut game makes people lose the will to cut government. They get accustomed to life with big government programs and don't want to give them up. Makes sense and the fact that no one even mentions cutting spending any more indicates he is spot on.
90% MAY be too high due to need for defense.
89.5% because of the repairs we have to keep making on naval ships.
Didn’t half of the executives in the DOJ spend HOURS AND HOURS earlier this year, propping up Sally Yates, when she defied POTUS’ travel ban provisions?
Seems like there is ALOT of dead weight, and money being wasted in these government jobs, where we are paying people, whose only goal is to sink the Trump administration.
More swamp-draining will help.
Trump has literally given a body blow to the marxists of this Nation.
Paying your tax is the mantra of the left. OK pay it.
The rest of the Nation will no longer put up with your problem.
Yes, please.
The Democrats will work to expand? Show me one entitlement that the Republicans are willing to rein in and I'll agree the Democrats are the problem.
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.