New Republican Tax plan (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

The meter is in full effect for me. Tweaking the craptastic system we have isn't going to do much IMO. A complete overhaul is necessary and this isn't it. They are attempting to present the appearance of "change" without doing anything substantial....very similar to the left's ACA shtick.

Not so much. The Left wanted single payer. 3rd way Democrats, essentially moderate republicans, gave us the ACA.

For purposes of this comment "left" = dems. I will adjust my labels accordingly for the audience of this thread

 

[timschochet]

The meter is in full effect for me. Tweaking the craptastic system we have isn't going to do much IMO. A complete overhaul is necessary and this isn't it. They are attempting to present the appearance of "change" without doing anything substantial....very similar to the left's ACA shtick.

If this isn't a complete overhaul, I don't know what it is. If enacted, this would be the biggest change to the tax code since 1986, by far.

This is just molding the #### sandwich into a different shape best I can tell. Until the approach to taxes is switched to a consumption model (to match our economy) it's lip service IMO.

So for you, it's consumption tax or the changes are meaningless? I don't think that's a reasonable approach.

 

[timschochet]

At the risk of sounding like a Reaganite supply sider, if this proposal is revenue neutral, it's actually revenue positive, as any plan which gives people more spending power is sure to help grow the economy.

 

[RCon]

I didn't see any sort of projection on how a proposal like this would impact revenue.

It's funny how you can't fart on the floor of the House without people getting blue in the face screaming about costs and the deficit, but you can propose to completely overhaul the primary driver on the other side of the ledger without a word about revenue and nobody bats an eye. What do you think happens to the big scary deficit if you jack up the standard deduction, cut rates on the rich by 5% and, in the words of the proposal, put an extra $1,300 per year in the pockets of the average family of four?

I'm all for tax reform, and maybe the elimination of deductions makes up for some of these revenue losses, but to not even address it kind of misses the point. It's like proposing massive cuts to military spending without bothering to discuss how it might impact the military and international politics.

It is supposed to be revenue neutral.

Sure, sure it is. I'm sure it's just as revenue neutral as the ACA is deficit neutral. Everything is neutral if you don't allow those scoring it to look at the whole picture.

 

[timschochet]

Actually ACA was supposed to be revenue positive, but that was based in the assumption that the mandate would magically be fully enforced and accepted- obviously a flawed assumption. Not sure if there is a similar flawed assumption in this analysis...

 

[TobiasFunke]

I didn't see any sort of projection on how a proposal like this would impact revenue.

It's funny how you can't fart on the floor of the House without people getting blue in the face screaming about costs and the deficit, but you can propose to completely overhaul the primary driver on the other side of the ledger without a word about revenue and nobody bats an eye. What do you think happens to the big scary deficit if you jack up the standard deduction, cut rates on the rich by 5% and, in the words of the proposal, put an extra $1,300 per year in the pockets of the average family of four?

I'm all for tax reform, and maybe the elimination of deductions makes up for some of these revenue losses, but to not even address it kind of misses the point. It's like proposing massive cuts to military spending without bothering to discuss how it might impact the military and international politics.

It is supposed to be revenue neutral.

Sure, sure it is. I'm sure it's just as revenue neutral as the ACA is deficit neutral. Everything is neutral if you don't allow those scoring it to look at the whole picture.

Yup. This would be my concern. You can't declare yourself revenue neutral and then turn around and say you're putting an average of $1300 a year back in the pockets of middle class families. I believe that's what Ben Stein famously called "Something D-O-O economics."

 

[The Commish]

The meter is in full effect for me. Tweaking the craptastic system we have isn't going to do much IMO. A complete overhaul is necessary and this isn't it. They are attempting to present the appearance of "change" without doing anything substantial....very similar to the left's ACA shtick.

If this isn't a complete overhaul, I don't know what it is. If enacted, this would be the biggest change to the tax code since 1986, by far.

This is just molding the #### sandwich into a different shape best I can tell. Until the approach to taxes is switched to a consumption model (to match our economy) it's lip service IMO.

So for you, it's consumption tax or the changes are meaningless? I don't think that's a reasonable approach.

There's a difference between being meaningful and effective. I'm sure it means a lot to some....it will have little effect given the current condition of the country's citizens.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Actually ACA was supposed to be revenue positive, but that was based in the assumption that the mandate would magically be fully enforced and accepted- obviously a flawed assumption. Not sure if there is a similar flawed assumption in this analysis...

There was NEVER any chance the ACA would be revenue neutral or revenue positive. Anyone with a lick of common sense knew that. The tricks they used to convince the CBO it would be are well documented. If you truly believe it was going to revenue positive you're either extremely naive or something else I won't call you here.

 

[NCCommish]

I didn't see any sort of projection on how a proposal like this would impact revenue.

It's funny how you can't fart on the floor of the House without people getting blue in the face screaming about costs and the deficit, but you can propose to completely overhaul the primary driver on the other side of the ledger without a word about revenue and nobody bats an eye. What do you think happens to the big scary deficit if you jack up the standard deduction, cut rates on the rich by 5% and, in the words of the proposal, put an extra $1,300 per year in the pockets of the average family of four?

I'm all for tax reform, and maybe the elimination of deductions makes up for some of these revenue losses, but to not even address it kind of misses the point. It's like proposing massive cuts to military spending without bothering to discuss how it might impact the military and international politics.

It is supposed to be revenue neutral.

Sure, sure it is. I'm sure it's just as revenue neutral as the ACA is deficit neutral. Everything is neutral if you don't allow those scoring it to look at the whole picture.

Again take it up with Bloomberg and company.

 

[NCCommish]

I didn't see any sort of projection on how a proposal like this would impact revenue.

It's funny how you can't fart on the floor of the House without people getting blue in the face screaming about costs and the deficit, but you can propose to completely overhaul the primary driver on the other side of the ledger without a word about revenue and nobody bats an eye. What do you think happens to the big scary deficit if you jack up the standard deduction, cut rates on the rich by 5% and, in the words of the proposal, put an extra $1,300 per year in the pockets of the average family of four?

I'm all for tax reform, and maybe the elimination of deductions makes up for some of these revenue losses, but to not even address it kind of misses the point. It's like proposing massive cuts to military spending without bothering to discuss how it might impact the military and international politics.

It is supposed to be revenue neutral.

Sure, sure it is. I'm sure it's just as revenue neutral as the ACA is deficit neutral. Everything is neutral if you don't allow those scoring it to look at the whole picture.

Yup. This would be my concern. You can't declare yourself revenue neutral and then turn around and say you're putting an average of $1300 a year back in the pockets of middle class families. I believe that's what Ben Stein famously called "Something D-O-O economics."

Yeah Ben Stein is not exactly my go to for economics.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I didn't see any sort of projection on how a proposal like this would impact revenue.

It's funny how you can't fart on the floor of the House without people getting blue in the face screaming about costs and the deficit, but you can propose to completely overhaul the primary driver on the other side of the ledger without a word about revenue and nobody bats an eye. What do you think happens to the big scary deficit if you jack up the standard deduction, cut rates on the rich by 5% and, in the words of the proposal, put an extra $1,300 per year in the pockets of the average family of four?

I'm all for tax reform, and maybe the elimination of deductions makes up for some of these revenue losses, but to not even address it kind of misses the point. It's like proposing massive cuts to military spending without bothering to discuss how it might impact the military and international politics.

It is supposed to be revenue neutral.

Sure, sure it is. I'm sure it's just as revenue neutral as the ACA is deficit neutral. Everything is neutral if you don't allow those scoring it to look at the whole picture.

Yup. This would be my concern. You can't declare yourself revenue neutral and then turn around and say you're putting an average of $1300 a year back in the pockets of middle class families. I believe that's what Ben Stein famously called "Something D-O-O economics."

Yeah Ben Stein is not exactly my go to for economics.

John Hughes, though? That guy was pretty sharp.

 

[timschochet]

Actually ACA was supposed to be revenue positive, but that was based in the assumption that the mandate would magically be fully enforced and accepted- obviously a flawed assumption. Not sure if there is a similar flawed assumption in this analysis...

There was NEVER any chance the ACA would be revenue neutral or revenue positive. Anyone with a lick of common sense knew that. The tricks they used to convince the CBO it would be are well documented. If you truly believe it was going to revenue positive you're either extremely naive or something else I won't call you here.

Not sure how obvious it was at the time. A lot of people accepted the CBO analysis and it wasn't unreasonable to do so. I didnt accept it. But it was nowhere near as cut and dried as you paint it (as you ALWAYS paint things).

 

[humpback]

I didn't see any sort of projection on how a proposal like this would impact revenue.

It's funny how you can't fart on the floor of the House without people getting blue in the face screaming about costs and the deficit, but you can propose to completely overhaul the primary driver on the other side of the ledger without a word about revenue and nobody bats an eye. What do you think happens to the big scary deficit if you jack up the standard deduction, cut rates on the rich by 5% and, in the words of the proposal, put an extra $1,300 per year in the pockets of the average family of four?

I'm all for tax reform, and maybe the elimination of deductions makes up for some of these revenue losses, but to not even address it kind of misses the point. It's like proposing massive cuts to military spending without bothering to discuss how it might impact the military and international politics.

It is supposed to be revenue neutral.

Sure, sure it is. I'm sure it's just as revenue neutral as the ACA is deficit neutral. Everything is neutral if you don't allow those scoring it to look at the whole picture.

Yup. This would be my concern. You can't declare yourself revenue neutral and then turn around and say you're putting an average of $1300 a year back in the pockets of middle class families. I believe that's what Ben Stein famously called "Something D-O-O economics."

Heck, that's only around half of the amount that the ACA was sold as saving us.

In any event, of course it can benefit one group and be revenue neutral overall, not that this or any other plan would actually accomplish that.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Actually ACA was supposed to be revenue positive, but that was based in the assumption that the mandate would magically be fully enforced and accepted- obviously a flawed assumption. Not sure if there is a similar flawed assumption in this analysis...

There was NEVER any chance the ACA would be revenue neutral or revenue positive. Anyone with a lick of common sense knew that. The tricks they used to convince the CBO it would be are well documented. If you truly believe it was going to revenue positive you're either extremely naive or something else I won't call you here.

Not sure how obvious it was at the time. A lot of people accepted the CBO analysis and it wasn't unreasonable to do so. I didnt accept it. But it was nowhere near as cut and dried as you paint it (as you ALWAYS paint things).

Yes it was. The only people who believed the CBO report were TommyGunz types and I doubt that even all of those people believed it. As I said the Dems had to use a bunch of tricks to even get the CBO to say it wouldn't be revenue negative. But those tricks were clearly tricks and not going to actually work so again, anyone with any amount of common sense knew it wouldn't be revenue neutral/positive.

 

[Don Quixote]

The meter is in full effect for me. Tweaking the craptastic system we have isn't going to do much IMO. A complete overhaul is necessary and this isn't it. They are attempting to present the appearance of "change" without doing anything substantial....very similar to the left's ACA shtick.

If this isn't a complete overhaul, I don't know what it is. If enacted, this would be the biggest change to the tax code since 1986, by far.

This is just molding the #### sandwich into a different shape best I can tell. Until the approach to taxes is switched to a consumption model (to match our economy) it's lip service IMO.

That's fair enough if you don't think it goes far enough, or otherwise disagree with the merits. I just disagree with the idea that it does not do anything substantial and is not an overhaul. I'm working on a client alert on it with about 8 other attorneys because it's too massive for a smaller number of us to write.

 

[RCon]

I didn't see any sort of projection on how a proposal like this would impact revenue.

It's funny how you can't fart on the floor of the House without people getting blue in the face screaming about costs and the deficit, but you can propose to completely overhaul the primary driver on the other side of the ledger without a word about revenue and nobody bats an eye. What do you think happens to the big scary deficit if you jack up the standard deduction, cut rates on the rich by 5% and, in the words of the proposal, put an extra $1,300 per year in the pockets of the average family of four?

I'm all for tax reform, and maybe the elimination of deductions makes up for some of these revenue losses, but to not even address it kind of misses the point. It's like proposing massive cuts to military spending without bothering to discuss how it might impact the military and international politics.

It is supposed to be revenue neutral.

Sure, sure it is. I'm sure it's just as revenue neutral as the ACA is deficit neutral. Everything is neutral if you don't allow those scoring it to look at the whole picture.

Again take it up with Bloomberg and company.

Fair enough.

 

[NCCommish]

I didn't see any sort of projection on how a proposal like this would impact revenue.

It's funny how you can't fart on the floor of the House without people getting blue in the face screaming about costs and the deficit, but you can propose to completely overhaul the primary driver on the other side of the ledger without a word about revenue and nobody bats an eye. What do you think happens to the big scary deficit if you jack up the standard deduction, cut rates on the rich by 5% and, in the words of the proposal, put an extra $1,300 per year in the pockets of the average family of four?

I'm all for tax reform, and maybe the elimination of deductions makes up for some of these revenue losses, but to not even address it kind of misses the point. It's like proposing massive cuts to military spending without bothering to discuss how it might impact the military and international politics.

It is supposed to be revenue neutral.

Sure, sure it is. I'm sure it's just as revenue neutral as the ACA is deficit neutral. Everything is neutral if you don't allow those scoring it to look at the whole picture.

Again take it up with Bloomberg and company.

Fair enough.

 

[matttyl]

I didn't see any sort of projection on how a proposal like this would impact revenue.

It's funny how you can't fart on the floor of the House without people getting blue in the face screaming about costs and the deficit, but you can propose to completely overhaul the primary driver on the other side of the ledger without a word about revenue and nobody bats an eye. What do you think happens to the big scary deficit if you jack up the standard deduction, cut rates on the rich by 5% and, in the words of the proposal, put an extra $1,300 per year in the pockets of the average family of four?

I'm all for tax reform, and maybe the elimination of deductions makes up for some of these revenue losses, but to not even address it kind of misses the point. It's like proposing massive cuts to military spending without bothering to discuss how it might impact the military and international politics.

Just because it says it will save the average family of 4 $1,300 doesn't mean it will. I mean the ACA line was that it would save the average American family of 4 $2,500 a year.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Actually ACA was supposed to be revenue positive, but that was based in the assumption that the mandate would magically be fully enforced and accepted- obviously a flawed assumption. Not sure if there is a similar flawed assumption in this analysis...

There was NEVER any chance the ACA would be revenue neutral or revenue positive. Anyone with a lick of common sense knew that. The tricks they used to convince the CBO it would be are well documented. If you truly believe it was going to revenue positive you're either extremely naive or something else I won't call you here.

Not sure how obvious it was at the time. A lot of people accepted the CBO analysis and it wasn't unreasonable to do so. I didnt accept it. But it was nowhere near as cut and dried as you paint it (as you ALWAYS paint things).

Yes it was. The only people who believed the CBO report were TommyGunz types and I doubt that even all of those people believed it. As I said the Dems had to use a bunch of tricks to even get the CBO to say it wouldn't be revenue negative. But those tricks were clearly tricks and not going to actually work so again, anyone with any amount of common sense knew it wouldn't be revenue neutral/positive.

Love the "I know more about the ACA's economic impact than the team of 50 economists at the CBO" shtick.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Sure, it's not like there is another alternative tax plan out there that should be focus of national debate. Nah. Let's keep doing this crap.

 

[RCon]

Actually ACA was supposed to be revenue positive, but that was based in the assumption that the mandate would magically be fully enforced and accepted- obviously a flawed assumption. Not sure if there is a similar flawed assumption in this analysis...

There was NEVER any chance the ACA would be revenue neutral or revenue positive. Anyone with a lick of common sense knew that. The tricks they used to convince the CBO it would be are well documented. If you truly believe it was going to revenue positive you're either extremely naive or something else I won't call you here.

Not sure how obvious it was at the time. A lot of people accepted the CBO analysis and it wasn't unreasonable to do so. I didnt accept it. But it was nowhere near as cut and dried as you paint it (as you ALWAYS paint things).

Yes it was. The only people who believed the CBO report were TommyGunz types and I doubt that even all of those people believed it. As I said the Dems had to use a bunch of tricks to even get the CBO to say it wouldn't be revenue negative. But those tricks were clearly tricks and not going to actually work so again, anyone with any amount of common sense knew it wouldn't be revenue neutral/positive.

Love the "I know more about the ACA's economic impact than the team of 50 economists at the CBO" shtick.

And we love the "repeatedly mischaracterize the arguments of the opposing side" schtick.

 

[NCCommish]

Sure, it's not like there is another alternative tax plan out there that should be focus of national debate. Nah. Let's keep doing this crap.

Fair Tax!

 

[Jackstraw]

Actually ACA was supposed to be revenue positive, but that was based in the assumption that the mandate would magically be fully enforced and accepted- obviously a flawed assumption. Not sure if there is a similar flawed assumption in this analysis...

There was NEVER any chance the ACA would be revenue neutral or revenue positive. Anyone with a lick of common sense knew that. The tricks they used to convince the CBO it would be are well documented. If you truly believe it was going to revenue positive you're either extremely naive or something else I won't call you here.

Not sure how obvious it was at the time. A lot of people accepted the CBO analysis and it wasn't unreasonable to do so. I didnt accept it. But it was nowhere near as cut and dried as you paint it (as you ALWAYS paint things).

Yes it was. The only people who believed the CBO report were TommyGunz types and I doubt that even all of those people believed it. As I said the Dems had to use a bunch of tricks to even get the CBO to say it wouldn't be revenue negative. But those tricks were clearly tricks and not going to actually work so again, anyone with any amount of common sense knew it wouldn't be revenue neutral/positive.

Love the "I know more about the ACA's economic impact than the team of 50 economists at the CBO" shtick.

It's like he's gotten in the deloreon and came back from the future. How can you even make judgements about the neutrality the first two months of the first year of implemenation? It's like its fait accompli. Although in its defense the CBO could never have foreseen the amount of sabatoge that was going to happen. Unprecendented.

 

[The Commish]

Actually ACA was supposed to be revenue positive, but that was based in the assumption that the mandate would magically be fully enforced and accepted- obviously a flawed assumption. Not sure if there is a similar flawed assumption in this analysis...

There was NEVER any chance the ACA would be revenue neutral or revenue positive. Anyone with a lick of common sense knew that. The tricks they used to convince the CBO it would be are well documented. If you truly believe it was going to revenue positive you're either extremely naive or something else I won't call you here.

Not sure how obvious it was at the time. A lot of people accepted the CBO analysis and it wasn't unreasonable to do so. I didnt accept it. But it was nowhere near as cut and dried as you paint it (as you ALWAYS paint things).

Yes it was. The only people who believed the CBO report were TommyGunz types and I doubt that even all of those people believed it. As I said the Dems had to use a bunch of tricks to even get the CBO to say it wouldn't be revenue negative. But those tricks were clearly tricks and not going to actually work so again, anyone with any amount of common sense knew it wouldn't be revenue neutral/positive.

Love the "I know more about the ACA's economic impact than the team of 50 economists at the CBO" shtick.

It's like he's gotten in the deloreon and came back from the future. How can you even make judgements about the neutrality the first two months of the first year of implemenation? It's like its fait accompli. Although in its defense the CBO could never have foreseen the amount of sabatoge that was going to happen. Unprecendented.

Turns out there are scenarios between "everything works exactly as planned" and "nothing is close to working as planned"....that they went with the former and then some to get things down to the soundbytes necessary should be a warning flag to anyone who was observing.

ETA: I think the "shock and awe" shtick from the dem that the GOP isn't willing to work with them is probably more shortsighted than those idiot Tea Partiers. That the dems couldn't predict this and account for it in design is laughable.

 

[CBusAlex]

CRFB report

A number of provisions in the legislation including the one-time transition tax in the international reform, the repeal of LIFO accounting, and the requirement that some retirement savings be put in Roth-style accounts instead of traditional tax-deferred accounts would generate most of their revenue on a temporary basis. Several other provisions, like changes to cost-recovery schedules, might also raise less revenue over the long-run than in the first decade. To the extent these changes are used to finance a permanent rate cut, the result could be a significant increase in long-term debt levels.

 

[Johnnymac]

There really is no need to argue about this stuff because we all know it will never happen. Never.

 

[Tchula]

Im ready to scrap income taxes and just have a consumption tax instead. (That means national sales tax for those of you who voted for Obama twice.)

 

[tommyGunZ]

Actually ACA was supposed to be revenue positive, but that was based in the assumption that the mandate would magically be fully enforced and accepted- obviously a flawed assumption. Not sure if there is a similar flawed assumption in this analysis...

There was NEVER any chance the ACA would be revenue neutral or revenue positive. Anyone with a lick of common sense knew that. The tricks they used to convince the CBO it would be are well documented. If you truly believe it was going to revenue positive you're either extremely naive or something else I won't call you here.

Not sure how obvious it was at the time. A lot of people accepted the CBO analysis and it wasn't unreasonable to do so. I didnt accept it. But it was nowhere near as cut and dried as you paint it (as you ALWAYS paint things).

Yes it was. The only people who believed the CBO report were TommyGunz types and I doubt that even all of those people believed it. As I said the Dems had to use a bunch of tricks to even get the CBO to say it wouldn't be revenue negative. But those tricks were clearly tricks and not going to actually work so again, anyone with any amount of common sense knew it wouldn't be revenue neutral/positive.

Love the "I know more about the ACA's economic impact than the team of 50 economists at the CBO" shtick.

It's like he's gotten in the deloreon and came back from the future. How can you even make judgements about the neutrality the first two months of the first year of implemenation? It's like its fait accompli. Although in its defense the CBO could never have foreseen the amount of sabatoge that was going to happen. Unprecendented.

Turns out there are scenarios between "everything works exactly as planned" and "nothing is close to working as planned"....that they went with the former and then some to get things down to the soundbytes necessary should be a warning flag to anyone who was observing.

ETA: I think the "shock and awe" shtick from the dem that the GOP isn't willing to work with them is probably more shortsighted than those idiot Tea Partiers. That the dems couldn't predict this and account for it in design is laughable.

LOL at your characterization of a CBO estimate as the CBO choosing "everything works as planned".

Do you know what an estimate is?

 

[The Commish]

Actually ACA was supposed to be revenue positive, but that was based in the assumption that the mandate would magically be fully enforced and accepted- obviously a flawed assumption. Not sure if there is a similar flawed assumption in this analysis...

There was NEVER any chance the ACA would be revenue neutral or revenue positive. Anyone with a lick of common sense knew that. The tricks they used to convince the CBO it would be are well documented. If you truly believe it was going to revenue positive you're either extremely naive or something else I won't call you here.

Not sure how obvious it was at the time. A lot of people accepted the CBO analysis and it wasn't unreasonable to do so. I didnt accept it. But it was nowhere near as cut and dried as you paint it (as you ALWAYS paint things).

Yes it was. The only people who believed the CBO report were TommyGunz types and I doubt that even all of those people believed it. As I said the Dems had to use a bunch of tricks to even get the CBO to say it wouldn't be revenue negative. But those tricks were clearly tricks and not going to actually work so again, anyone with any amount of common sense knew it wouldn't be revenue neutral/positive.

Love the "I know more about the ACA's economic impact than the team of 50 economists at the CBO" shtick.

It's like he's gotten in the deloreon and came back from the future. How can you even make judgements about the neutrality the first two months of the first year of implemenation? It's like its fait accompli. Although in its defense the CBO could never have foreseen the amount of sabatoge that was going to happen. Unprecendented.

Turns out there are scenarios between "everything works exactly as planned" and "nothing is close to working as planned"....that they went with the former and then some to get things down to the soundbytes necessary should be a warning flag to anyone who was observing.

ETA: I think the "shock and awe" shtick from the dem that the GOP isn't willing to work with them is probably more shortsighted than those idiot Tea Partiers. That the dems couldn't predict this and account for it in design is laughable.

LOL at your characterization of a CBO estimate as the CBO choosing "everything works as planned".

Do you know what an estimate is?

Would you prefer "pie in the sky" scenarios vs "doom and gloom" scenarios? I find it amusing that you'd rather pick nits. It didn't take long to flow right into the "it was just an estimate" shtick.....I'm not sure the administration has even gotten to that stage yet

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You guys are exaggerating the difference a consumption tax will make. In fact we already have a consumption tax. It just taxes domestic labor intense products and services at higher rates. Of course when most of us are in a service industry where the product is mostly labor there are some advantages to also taxing other stuff, but beyond that it is just a regressive* flat tax.

*Most flat tax proposals include some form of a BIG (though they usually avoid that idea like the plague and it is small) to make the tax more progressive. Forbes; flat income tax had essentially a negative income tax model. The FairTax flat consumption tax has the prebate.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Would you prefer "pie in the sky" scenarios vs "doom and gloom" scenarios?

Do you think a 30% consumption tax or 60% consumption tax will collect the same revenue as today's assortment of taxes?

Both estimates exists.

 

[Tchula]

Well I think we need to spend less money. There is no need to collect nearly as much money as we do now.. Then again, I'm Libertarian.

 

[The Commish]

Would you prefer "pie in the sky" scenarios vs "doom and gloom" scenarios?

Do you think a 30% consumption tax or 60% consumption tax will collect the same revenue as today's assortment of taxes?

Both estimates exists.

I suspect they will collect different amounts of revenue. I'm fine with cutting the "salaries" of all these politicians and their "benefits" to account for the difference. We should be spending a lot less money than we are and these seem like the fatest of the fat.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Would you prefer "pie in the sky" scenarios vs "doom and gloom" scenarios?

Do you think a 30% consumption tax or 60% consumption tax will collect the same revenue as today's assortment of taxes?

Both estimates exists.

I suspect they will collect different amounts of revenue. I'm fine with cutting the "salaries" of all these politicians and their "benefits" to account for the difference. We should be spending a lot less money than we are and these seem like the fatest of the fat.

You suspect wrong. Those are two of many estimates are what it would take for a federal consumption tax to be revenue neutral - that is to already not collect enough in revenue for current spending. They are based on different assumptions, but which one of those would likely be "pie in the sky"? And which one more likely in terms of our political reality?

 

[The Commish]

Would you prefer "pie in the sky" scenarios vs "doom and gloom" scenarios?

Do you think a 30% consumption tax or 60% consumption tax will collect the same revenue as today's assortment of taxes?

Both estimates exists.

I suspect they will collect different amounts of revenue. I'm fine with cutting the "salaries" of all these politicians and their "benefits" to account for the difference. We should be spending a lot less money than we are and these seem like the fatest of the fat.

You suspect wrong. Those are two of many estimates are what it would take for a federal consumption tax to be revenue neutral - that is to already not collect enough in revenue for current spending. They are based on different assumptions, but which one of those would likely be "pie in the sky"? And which one more likely in terms of our political reality?

I don't think either would qualify as "pie in the sky" and I don't think either is likely politically. We go to consumption based taxes and corporations will be out in full force. Politicians won't have that.

 

[culdeus]

consumption tax on everything that isn't

food in a grocery store

clothing that is <100/item

household staples that conform to some standard

makers mark

 

[Dr Oadi]

consumption tax on everything that isn't

food in a grocery store

clothing that is <100/item

household staples that conform to some standard

makers mark

Fixed.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Not mentioned are lots of major changes in the corporate and international tax areas too. It generally does away with MACRS depreciation in favor of straight-line depreciation. It repeals all of the energy credits and many other credits, and basically just leaves the R&D credit. And significantly narrows the scope of subpart F, which is the regime under which foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies have been taxed since the 1960s.

Any particular details about the Subpart F changes? I've got a lot of clients with Subpart F issues (a hell of a lot of CFCs).

 

[Steve Tasker]

This will bite California residents pretty hard no? Their state taxes are pretty high

Actually it is aimed pretty directly at wealthy in blue states. Supposedly because other states are subsidizing their higher state taxes. So OK if we are so worried about subsidizing another state due to their tax regime let's add an amendment that says a state can only get back the federal taxes it sends in. Then these states can stop subsiding low tax red states who consistently get more than they put in and it is supplied by these blue states. Maybe then tax regimes will even up a bit and at least it will be fair

Many - perhaps most - "wealthy" taxpayers in blue states are AMT taxpayers anyway, and get no benefit from their state income tax deduction.