|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 03 2017 03:51 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2017 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 03 2017 01:51 kollin wrote:On December 03 2017 01:46 Sermokala wrote:On December 03 2017 01:35 xDaunt wrote:
The most important and impactful feature of the tax bill is the slashing of corporate tax rates, which needs to happen. Most everything else is a comparative rounding error. All of the hysteria surrounding this bill is grossly unwarranted. But xdaunt if they don't pass a budget at all for the ten years the worst thing that will happen is that the debt will go up by a whole trillion dollars. That means america will be a third world nation and civil war will happen. Don't forget great depression guaranteed if they don't pass a new budget for the next few years for some reason. Is it not 1.5 trillion to the budget deficit, which is effectively tripling it? I'm reading it as "Will add ~1.5 trillion to the deficit by 2027" not the debt as well. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/reconciliationrecommendationssfc.pdfEDIT: The point is to use the deficit to justify social cuts anyway. Create the crisis and demand we solve it their way. Then the next Bill Clinton is supposed to oblige them again. It's to the debt. Adding 1.4t to the deficit would be insane. The macro impact of the bill really us not as large as people make it.
I'm no pro at reading this stuff but...
...enacting the legislation would reduce revenues by about $1,633 billion and decrease outlays by $219 billion over the 2018-2027 period, leading to an increase in the deficit of $1,414 billion over the next 10 years. A portion of the changes in revenues would be from Social Security payroll taxes, which are off-budget. Excluding the estimated $27 billion increase in off-budget revenues over the next 10 years, JCT estimates that the legislation would increase on-budget deficits by about $1,441 billion over the period from 2018 to 2027.
www.cbo.gov
|
On December 03 2017 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2017 03:51 warding wrote:On December 03 2017 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 03 2017 01:51 kollin wrote:On December 03 2017 01:46 Sermokala wrote:On December 03 2017 01:35 xDaunt wrote:
The most important and impactful feature of the tax bill is the slashing of corporate tax rates, which needs to happen. Most everything else is a comparative rounding error. All of the hysteria surrounding this bill is grossly unwarranted. But xdaunt if they don't pass a budget at all for the ten years the worst thing that will happen is that the debt will go up by a whole trillion dollars. That means america will be a third world nation and civil war will happen. Don't forget great depression guaranteed if they don't pass a new budget for the next few years for some reason. Is it not 1.5 trillion to the budget deficit, which is effectively tripling it? I'm reading it as "Will add ~1.5 trillion to the deficit by 2027" not the debt as well. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/reconciliationrecommendationssfc.pdfEDIT: The point is to use the deficit to justify social cuts anyway. Create the crisis and demand we solve it their way. Then the next Bill Clinton is supposed to oblige them again. It's to the debt. Adding 1.4t to the deficit would be insane. The macro impact of the bill really us not as large as people make it. I'm no pro at reading this stuff but... Show nested quote +...enacting the legislation would reduce revenues by about $1,633 billion and decrease outlays by $219 billion over the 2018-2027 period, leading to an increase in the deficit of $1,414 billion over the next 10 years. A portion of the changes in revenues would be from Social Security payroll taxes, which are off-budget. Excluding the estimated $27 billion increase in off-budget revenues over the next 10 years, JCT estimates that the legislation would increase on-budget deficits by about $1,441 billion over the period from 2018 to 2027. www.cbo.gov
I mean 1.4t does seem an insane amount, and deficit and debt are frequently conflated, but I like to think that hasn't been the case in this report lol
|
United States42925 Posts
Church tithes are also effectively no longer tax deductible for most Americans.
|
On December 03 2017 04:48 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2017 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 03 2017 03:51 warding wrote:On December 03 2017 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 03 2017 01:51 kollin wrote:On December 03 2017 01:46 Sermokala wrote:On December 03 2017 01:35 xDaunt wrote:
The most important and impactful feature of the tax bill is the slashing of corporate tax rates, which needs to happen. Most everything else is a comparative rounding error. All of the hysteria surrounding this bill is grossly unwarranted. But xdaunt if they don't pass a budget at all for the ten years the worst thing that will happen is that the debt will go up by a whole trillion dollars. That means america will be a third world nation and civil war will happen. Don't forget great depression guaranteed if they don't pass a new budget for the next few years for some reason. Is it not 1.5 trillion to the budget deficit, which is effectively tripling it? I'm reading it as "Will add ~1.5 trillion to the deficit by 2027" not the debt as well. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/reconciliationrecommendationssfc.pdfEDIT: The point is to use the deficit to justify social cuts anyway. Create the crisis and demand we solve it their way. Then the next Bill Clinton is supposed to oblige them again. It's to the debt. Adding 1.4t to the deficit would be insane. The macro impact of the bill really us not as large as people make it. I'm no pro at reading this stuff but... ...enacting the legislation would reduce revenues by about $1,633 billion and decrease outlays by $219 billion over the 2018-2027 period, leading to an increase in the deficit of $1,414 billion over the next 10 years. A portion of the changes in revenues would be from Social Security payroll taxes, which are off-budget. Excluding the estimated $27 billion increase in off-budget revenues over the next 10 years, JCT estimates that the legislation would increase on-budget deficits by about $1,441 billion over the period from 2018 to 2027. www.cbo.gov I mean 1.4t does seem an insane amount, and deficit and debt are frequently conflated, but I like to think that hasn't been the case in this report lol
That's why I went straight to the actual report instead of any analysis. I feel like people just presumed "debt" because deficit is so ridiculously insane it was hard to imagine. The word "debt" isn't even in the report.
|
On December 03 2017 04:50 KwarK wrote:
Church tithes are also effectively no longer tax deductible for most Americans.
That seems like a weird thing to include from Republicans.
|
On December 03 2017 04:48 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2017 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 03 2017 03:51 warding wrote:On December 03 2017 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 03 2017 01:51 kollin wrote:On December 03 2017 01:46 Sermokala wrote:On December 03 2017 01:35 xDaunt wrote:
The most important and impactful feature of the tax bill is the slashing of corporate tax rates, which needs to happen. Most everything else is a comparative rounding error. All of the hysteria surrounding this bill is grossly unwarranted. But xdaunt if they don't pass a budget at all for the ten years the worst thing that will happen is that the debt will go up by a whole trillion dollars. That means america will be a third world nation and civil war will happen. Don't forget great depression guaranteed if they don't pass a new budget for the next few years for some reason. Is it not 1.5 trillion to the budget deficit, which is effectively tripling it? I'm reading it as "Will add ~1.5 trillion to the deficit by 2027" not the debt as well. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/reconciliationrecommendationssfc.pdfEDIT: The point is to use the deficit to justify social cuts anyway. Create the crisis and demand we solve it their way. Then the next Bill Clinton is supposed to oblige them again. It's to the debt. Adding 1.4t to the deficit would be insane. The macro impact of the bill really us not as large as people make it. I'm no pro at reading this stuff but... ...enacting the legislation would reduce revenues by about $1,633 billion and decrease outlays by $219 billion over the 2018-2027 period, leading to an increase in the deficit of $1,414 billion over the next 10 years. A portion of the changes in revenues would be from Social Security payroll taxes, which are off-budget. Excluding the estimated $27 billion increase in off-budget revenues over the next 10 years, JCT estimates that the legislation would increase on-budget deficits by about $1,441 billion over the period from 2018 to 2027. www.cbo.gov I mean 1.4t does seem an insane amount, and deficit and debt are frequently conflated, but I like to think that hasn't been the case in this report lol
The budget deficit for 2017 ended up being 666 billion (Source)
doubling that would hardly be impossible.
Consider that a tax cut across all brackets means that there is a lot less money coming in and nothing to replace it since the corporate cut will likely not lead to more investment but simply bigger bonuses and more reserve.
|
I assume that the issue with the line about "increase in the deficit 1,414 billion over the next 10 years" has to do with how the law is scored and so how it can move through the Congress. If you look, for instance here and here, it talks about the "cost" of the plan being over 1.5 trillion over ten years. The chart on the NYT story seems to imply that what the line means is "over 10 years, the cumulative increase in 'spending' on this bill will cost over 1.5 trillion."
Also, the spending bill the GOP approved is how this tax cut was passable by reconciliation, and I think that only allowed about 1.5 trillion over 10 years, as the WP story notes. I assume there is a wonky reason it is phrased this way.
Late edit: it is the NYT story that references reconciliation.
|
1.4 trillion is a third of US government revenues. I think you're reading it wrong. It's a 1.4 trillion deficit over 10 years compared to the baseline
|
On December 03 2017 04:59 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2017 04:50 KwarK wrote:
Church tithes are also effectively no longer tax deductible for most Americans. That seems like a weird thing to include from Republicans.
Quick google search says that faith groups and charities were concerned even back in October that doubling the standard deduction would discourage itemizing, which would presumably provide less incentive to donate. So it doesn't look like they ripped a deduction away.
|
On December 03 2017 05:06 Introvert wrote:I assume that the issue with the line about "increase in the deficit 1,414 billion over the next 10 years" has to do with how the law is scored and so how it can move through the Congress. If you look, for instance here and here, it talks about the "cost" of the plan being over 1.5 trillion over ten years. The chart on the NYT story seems to imply that what the line means is "over 10 years, the cumulative increase in 'spending' on this bill will cost over 1.5 trillion." Also, the spending bill the GOP approved is how this tax cut was passable by reconciliation, and I think that only allowed about 1.5 trillion over 10 years, as the WP story notes. I assume there is a wonky reason it is phrased this way.
I don't know, I guess it says "cumulative deficit" whatever the hell that means.
|
I never would've thought that Corker was the only republican in the senate who actually had principles about the deficit
|
On December 03 2017 05:25 Nevuk wrote:
I never would've thought that Corker was the only republican in the senate who actually had principles about the deficit
It's as though the various charges of "RINO" are actually a placeholder for distaste in the face of a right-leaning politician with principles.
|
On December 03 2017 04:35 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2017 04:00 mozoku wrote:On December 03 2017 01:52 hunts wrote:On December 03 2017 01:35 xDaunt wrote:
The most important and impactful feature of the tax bill is the slashing of corporate tax rates, which needs to happen. Most everything else is a comparative rounding error. All of the hysteria surrounding this bill is grossly unwarranted. And why does the slashing of corporate tax rate need to happen? Or do you just say that because of your "uhm a republican, eye need dis!" mentality? Or do you have a reasonable and for once FACTUAL reason for saying this? The treatment of corporate taxes in the bill isn't as simple as just cutting the tax rate, though that's part of it. The current tax system is 30 years old, which means it was designed for a different economy and corporations have had 30 years to figure out how to play around it. Consequently, the status quo provides (and corporations take advantage of) all sorts of backwards incentives not to invest in the US and to shift intellectual property overseas. Saying "we're at full employment" is sort of a red herring. More investment opportunities still means a more dynamic economy because workers have more choices in employment opportunities, and the employers with the most productive opportunities can pay more to attract workers. You have it fundamentally backward. Investment is totally driven by profitability. A short supply of labor increases labor costs and hurts profitability. There won't simply be "more employment opportunities" because nobody invests in something without a clear idea of whether it will be profitable. This is why your "I'm a statistics expert and I am using simple logic to explain how capitalism works" (while accusing everyone else, mind you, of being ideologically brainwashed) is so ironic. You need to update your analytical ideas toolbox.
This doesn't make much sense. The status quo is full employment. If incentives are fixed, more productive opportunities become profitable, and more unproductive opportunities become unprofitable. Laborers shift to productive activities from unproductive ones. That's an upgrade on its own.
More to your direct point, because taxes are applied asymmetrically to gains and losses, they disproportionately reduce the incentives to invest in the riskiest (i.e. most productive/profitable) options. Thus, cutting taxes increases investment in projects that are worth paying workers than their currently getting paid. Both the workers and the investors win relative to the status quo, though a larger share of the win does go to the investor on average.
People invest in stuff they're not sure is going to be profitable all the time. Isn't that basically a description of a VC's day-to-day? In finance, that's what the term risk means. Uncertainty of returns (i.e. profitability). Sometimes the variance is such that the probability of profitablity is small, but the potential payout is such that it makes the risk worth it. If you have the risk appetite, it makes sense to invest in those opportunities.
The CAPM (i.e. theory that equates risk and profitability) is a pretty fundamental theorem of finance, and has been empirically confirmed in many ways. GH tried to dismiss it with his next-level buzzphrase "people aren't rational", but that's an oversimplification. It's true that, to an extent, people aren't. But the fact that the CAPM exists and is a fundamental principle of modern finance (i.e. is profitable) is proof that the assumptions are true to at least a reasonable extent. That doesn't conflict with the fact that behavioral economics can be valuable for the x% extent to which the assumptions aren't fulfilled.
The irony is doubled because your rationale for the corporate tax overhaul is that it is 30 years old and "outdated" but you still believe that capitalism fundamentally operates in the same way as it did 150 years ago. Arguably, 300 years ago, when America had a labor shortage, a vast frontier with untapped natural resources, and established and growing(!) markets to sell new products, your argument might have had some truth in it. Now you are just operating on blind faith, without even the benefit of having read and synthesized the fundamental insights (Adam Smith, Hayek, etc.) from which your "logical" arguments derive.
I never said the principles of capitalism changed. Globalization has provided opportunities to abuse the tax code that people couldn't foresee in 1987.
|
On December 03 2017 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2017 03:51 warding wrote:On December 03 2017 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 03 2017 01:51 kollin wrote:On December 03 2017 01:46 Sermokala wrote:On December 03 2017 01:35 xDaunt wrote:
The most important and impactful feature of the tax bill is the slashing of corporate tax rates, which needs to happen. Most everything else is a comparative rounding error. All of the hysteria surrounding this bill is grossly unwarranted. But xdaunt if they don't pass a budget at all for the ten years the worst thing that will happen is that the debt will go up by a whole trillion dollars. That means america will be a third world nation and civil war will happen. Don't forget great depression guaranteed if they don't pass a new budget for the next few years for some reason. Is it not 1.5 trillion to the budget deficit, which is effectively tripling it? I'm reading it as "Will add ~1.5 trillion to the deficit by 2027" not the debt as well. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/reconciliationrecommendationssfc.pdfEDIT: The point is to use the deficit to justify social cuts anyway. Create the crisis and demand we solve it their way. Then the next Bill Clinton is supposed to oblige them again. It's to the debt. Adding 1.4t to the deficit would be insane. The macro impact of the bill really us not as large as people make it. I'm no pro at reading this stuff but... Show nested quote +...enacting the legislation would reduce revenues by about $1,633 billion and decrease outlays by $219 billion over the 2018-2027 period, leading to an increase in the deficit of $1,414 billion over the next 10 years. A portion of the changes in revenues would be from Social Security payroll taxes, which are off-budget. Excluding the estimated $27 billion increase in off-budget revenues over the next 10 years, JCT estimates that the legislation would increase on-budget deficits by about $1,441 billion over the period from 2018 to 2027. www.cbo.gov
So does this mean that the 1.4t number is distributed over 10 years or do we arrive at the number after 10 years?
|
On December 03 2017 05:27 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2017 05:25 Nevuk wrote:
I never would've thought that Corker was the only republican in the senate who actually had principles about the deficit It's as though the various charges of "RINO" are actually a placeholder for distaste in the face of a right-leaning politician with principles.
While I believe he has voted for plenty of deficit spending in the past, he's less known and disliked for his supposed financial and fiscal responsibility. It's more for his actions (and then deflections) on the Iran deal as well as his trashing of Trump after trying out for 2 or 3 administration positions (VP and SoS being the two I know of for sure).
|
On December 03 2017 05:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2017 05:27 farvacola wrote:On December 03 2017 05:25 Nevuk wrote:
I never would've thought that Corker was the only republican in the senate who actually had principles about the deficit It's as though the various charges of "RINO" are actually a placeholder for distaste in the face of a right-leaning politician with principles. While I believe he has voted for plenty of deficit spending in the past, he's less known and disliked for his supposed financial responsibility. It's more for his actions (and then deflections) on the Iran deal as well as his trashing of Trump after trying out for 2 or 3 administration positions (VP and SoS being the two I know of for sure).
Oh yeah. With Obama in office, he's all for continuing resolutions and budgets that increase the debt. When a Republican is in office, and he doesn't have to run for reelection, he finds his principles again. Oh, there's where I left them!
We're pretty used to this by now. It's ho hum when opposition forces pretend to like one of our guys for ten minutes based on their most recent actions.
|
Ah yeah speaking of RINO's. Danglers, does the fact that Rand Paul voted for this bill mean that there is now no actual Republicans left in the Republican party?
|
On December 03 2017 05:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2017 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 03 2017 03:51 warding wrote:On December 03 2017 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 03 2017 01:51 kollin wrote:On December 03 2017 01:46 Sermokala wrote:On December 03 2017 01:35 xDaunt wrote:
The most important and impactful feature of the tax bill is the slashing of corporate tax rates, which needs to happen. Most everything else is a comparative rounding error. All of the hysteria surrounding this bill is grossly unwarranted. But xdaunt if they don't pass a budget at all for the ten years the worst thing that will happen is that the debt will go up by a whole trillion dollars. That means america will be a third world nation and civil war will happen. Don't forget great depression guaranteed if they don't pass a new budget for the next few years for some reason. Is it not 1.5 trillion to the budget deficit, which is effectively tripling it? I'm reading it as "Will add ~1.5 trillion to the deficit by 2027" not the debt as well. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/reconciliationrecommendationssfc.pdfEDIT: The point is to use the deficit to justify social cuts anyway. Create the crisis and demand we solve it their way. Then the next Bill Clinton is supposed to oblige them again. It's to the debt. Adding 1.4t to the deficit would be insane. The macro impact of the bill really us not as large as people make it. I'm no pro at reading this stuff but... ...enacting the legislation would reduce revenues by about $1,633 billion and decrease outlays by $219 billion over the 2018-2027 period, leading to an increase in the deficit of $1,414 billion over the next 10 years. A portion of the changes in revenues would be from Social Security payroll taxes, which are off-budget. Excluding the estimated $27 billion increase in off-budget revenues over the next 10 years, JCT estimates that the legislation would increase on-budget deficits by about $1,441 billion over the period from 2018 to 2027. www.cbo.gov So does this mean that the 1.4t number is distributed over 10 years or do we arrive at the number after 10 years?
My interpretation of that is we arrive at it after 10. It would be very weird to be talking about a 1.4t increase in the debt and phrase it that way.
|
On December 03 2017 05:47 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2017 05:35 Sermokala wrote:On December 03 2017 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 03 2017 03:51 warding wrote:On December 03 2017 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 03 2017 01:51 kollin wrote:On December 03 2017 01:46 Sermokala wrote:On December 03 2017 01:35 xDaunt wrote:
The most important and impactful feature of the tax bill is the slashing of corporate tax rates, which needs to happen. Most everything else is a comparative rounding error. All of the hysteria surrounding this bill is grossly unwarranted. But xdaunt if they don't pass a budget at all for the ten years the worst thing that will happen is that the debt will go up by a whole trillion dollars. That means america will be a third world nation and civil war will happen. Don't forget great depression guaranteed if they don't pass a new budget for the next few years for some reason. Is it not 1.5 trillion to the budget deficit, which is effectively tripling it? I'm reading it as "Will add ~1.5 trillion to the deficit by 2027" not the debt as well. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/reconciliationrecommendationssfc.pdfEDIT: The point is to use the deficit to justify social cuts anyway. Create the crisis and demand we solve it their way. Then the next Bill Clinton is supposed to oblige them again. It's to the debt. Adding 1.4t to the deficit would be insane. The macro impact of the bill really us not as large as people make it. I'm no pro at reading this stuff but... ...enacting the legislation would reduce revenues by about $1,633 billion and decrease outlays by $219 billion over the 2018-2027 period, leading to an increase in the deficit of $1,414 billion over the next 10 years. A portion of the changes in revenues would be from Social Security payroll taxes, which are off-budget. Excluding the estimated $27 billion increase in off-budget revenues over the next 10 years, JCT estimates that the legislation would increase on-budget deficits by about $1,441 billion over the period from 2018 to 2027. www.cbo.gov So does this mean that the 1.4t number is distributed over 10 years or do we arrive at the number after 10 years? My interpretation of that is we arrive at it after 10. It would be very weird to be talking about a 1.4t increase in the debt and phrase it that way.
So is this a willful ignorance of Introvert's post or did you not read it? Reconciliation wouldn't even be an option with your interpretation.
The reason many of the cuts expire after 10 years is to avoid going over the reconciliation threshold. Your interpretation implies an odd scenario where a bunch of tax cuts expire after 10 years, but we're somehow increasing to a $1.5T annual deficit.
It's admittedly phrased weird, but you're really not trying very hard to understand this.
|
Emails from senior Trump transition members leaked to the NYT showing discussions about Flynn's planned call to Kislyak hours after the Obama admin ordered sanctions. In other words Flynn's was directed and planned by the transition. The stated justification in the emails was that the sanctions were only an attempt to undermine Trump's victory (I'm sure Trump himself had nothing to do with this reasoning).
But Flynn was fired because he lied to the Trump team about what he said to Kislyak. Flynn went rogue - just trust Donald Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
