A tax cut for businesses which already loophole their way to a much lower rate won't do much to increase investment. Tax breaks for the wealthy won't do anything to increase investment - the 1% is already sitting on more money than it knows what to do with. To produce real economic growth we should tax UNEARNED and EARNED income at the SAME RATE. With the rich paying same tax rate as the middle class we could afford job-creating infrastructure programs and put more money in the pockets of workers and that will spur demand.
30
All well and good, except this "user pays" financing.
TAXES are the "pays" for the "user."
This short-sightedness will lead to a further stratification between the haves and have-nots. Any policy should look to shorten that gap, not widen it.
TAXES are the "pays" for the "user."
This short-sightedness will lead to a further stratification between the haves and have-nots. Any policy should look to shorten that gap, not widen it.
8
A complete Republican manifesto! Seriously?
9
More Art Laffer trickle down economics. It didn't work under Reagan. It won't work now. Why does anyone listen to this guy's ridiculous theories?
32
To the authors:
You do realize April Fool's Day was 2 weeks ago, right?
You do realize April Fool's Day was 2 weeks ago, right?
41
Campaign promises are easy.
Peddling flawed, failed Pie-in-the-Sky policies is easy.
Governing is hard - and 'complicated.'
Peddling flawed, failed Pie-in-the-Sky policies is easy.
Governing is hard - and 'complicated.'
18
Same old "Supply Side" nonsense.
It has NEVER worked, there is a mountain of evidence on this subject. Shame on the NYT for treating these confidence men like they have any genuine original ideas.
It has NEVER worked, there is a mountain of evidence on this subject. Shame on the NYT for treating these confidence men like they have any genuine original ideas.
42
What absolute nonsense. Corporate profits are near all time highs, corporate cash on hand is near all time highs, and interest rates are near all time lows. In short, corporate America has more money than ever. So what are they doing with all that cash? Buying back their own shares, acquiring other companies, and giving raises to executives -- all things that INCREASE income disparity and LOWER productivity Why should anybody believe that if we give them even MORE money through tax breaks they will somehow behave differently?
54
I don't think so....
8
Uh oh. Here we go again. Trickle on down little doggies, trickle on down.
16
If republicans did 'simple' they would be called democrats.
7
Is the NYT trying to appear "balanced" or just testing the comments to see if the Times needs to shift a bit more to the right?
If it's balance they want, the Times could find some less patently absurd tax suggestions. We don't have to pretend the Ryan- McConnell corporate machine or the Trump administration are cogent.
If it's balance they want, the Times could find some less patently absurd tax suggestions. We don't have to pretend the Ryan- McConnell corporate machine or the Trump administration are cogent.
12
This article is a republican wet-dream. All for the wealthy, 'trickle down' on the west of us.
14
Wow the 4 horseman of supply side stupidity.
26
The Four Stooges put together a wishlist for the wealthy.
20
Sessions is working on turning the US into Alabama. The 4 clowns here are trying hard to duplicate Laffer's success in Kansas. Terri below has it nailed. Even the GOP lightweights in congress will have trouble with what you are recommending.
Give us a break! An NYT editorial please read these before you post. I can go to Fox for fairy tales.
Give us a break! An NYT editorial please read these before you post. I can go to Fox for fairy tales.
20
Yikes! If Forbes and Kudlow helped write Trump's tax reform plan, I have no doubt the country could do much better.
5
These authors have only one message - 'Please gimme a yuge taxcut!'
17
Am I missing something? Trump could make it much, much easier if he just released his own taxes. That's it. That's how you do it.
13
This editorial is too long for President Trump to bother reading. Perhaps one of his staff members could fit the gist of it into one small set of bulleted highlights? Also, perhaps the authors could also send it to The Wall Street Journal, where he might pay more attention to it.
5
O'Reilly got fired.
Trump escalated to President of the U. S.
Both guilty of the same behavior.
Hmmm!
Trump escalated to President of the U. S.
Both guilty of the same behavior.
Hmmm!
13
Why should anybody care about deficits as long as the Republicans are in charge? Deficits only matter when Democrats are in charge. This proposal gives us motorists the opportunity to pay highway tolls in order for billionaires to have a massive tax cut and probably an income shelter to boot.
17
It's so cute when Republicans put on their big boy voices and say grown-up sounding stuff. And then expect Trump to hear big boy words and understand anything except "Get rid of the estate tax."
9
Sorry, Boyz, but no tax returns? Then no tax reform.
Since I'm not one of the elite 1% - in fact, I'm in the bottom 20% - then I'm in absolutely no rush for any Republican/conservative 'tax-reform', ever.
I know exactly what your "trickle-down" is: It's some form of Trumpian water-sports.
No tax returns?
No tax reform.
Since I'm not one of the elite 1% - in fact, I'm in the bottom 20% - then I'm in absolutely no rush for any Republican/conservative 'tax-reform', ever.
I know exactly what your "trickle-down" is: It's some form of Trumpian water-sports.
No tax returns?
No tax reform.
8
This is from : americansfortaxfairness.org
Corporates are already paying less taxes and these proposals sound like they should be paying lower.
Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013.
GE, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.
288 big and profitable Fortune 500 corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% from 2008 to 2012.
Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010.
U.S. corporations dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens.
U.S. corporations officially hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here.
Corporates are already paying less taxes and these proposals sound like they should be paying lower.
Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013.
GE, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.
288 big and profitable Fortune 500 corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% from 2008 to 2012.
Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010.
U.S. corporations dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens.
U.S. corporations officially hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here.
19
One thing you can say for captains of industry like Steve Forbes is they are shameless. Just give me more and more tax breaks on my corporations and oh, by the way, we'll keep the suckers in the middle class happy by creating a fund for infrastructure jobs. Let the trickle down begin!
15
Fake president Tweetie Pie wants to have his cake and eat it too. The most beautiful piece of chocolate cake you've ever seen. It's filled with all of his dubious connections and tax dodges hidden beneath an icy veneer of phony reasons not to reveal his own tax returns. SAD!
3
wow, look at the authors history and bio! You will immediately understand their concept of tax reform (i.e., much more money for them and their friends). Forget the "little people" as one richie-rich famously said.
4
As one (probably several) of the commenters stated below, why is the NYT publishing such obvious rubbish? And no, I'm not some gosh dang libral. I'm a long time Republican who served in Bush 41's administration. The rationales the authors use to make their points have been discredited repeatedly--a lot of them by recent experience. No legitimate economist, which none of the authors are, believes this stuff. The commentators below--I read a dozen or so--strike me as overwhelmingly better informed than the authors. Why promulgate such obvious bunk?
18
The GOP can't govern. They can only lie, and say, "No".
This peculiar set of abilities makes everything except winning elections hard.
This peculiar set of abilities makes everything except winning elections hard.
3
And the merciless, disastrous, immoral, unjust shift of the tax burden from capital to labor continues unabated. These people really don't have a modicum of shame.
7
These assertions and proposals have all been thoroughly disproven, yet these dinosaurs continue to promote them. Why? Because the GOP has convincingly demonstrated that if you repeatedly tell the same lie, eventually some people will believe it. You can fool some of the people, a lot of the time.
6
'Just give us the darn money' seems to be what these guys are saying. Despite the fact that massive, high end focused tax cuts during the Bush Administration only produced tepid economic growth, and huge deficits, these guys are unencumbered by facts. They just want us to drain our national treasury for them, and they have a fanatical belief that upper income tax cuts will produce high economic growth which will, against recent history, will somehow shower down upon the rest of us.
OK, here's the deal; we will give you the tax cuts, but if we don't get high economic growth and high wage growth, then you give them back, double. You want the tax payer to take all the risk with the 'promise' (wink, wink) that you will share your bounty with the rest of us. I say, put it in writing. If tax cuts are a 'can't lose' high growth proposition, then sign up to double our money if it doesn't work out.
OK, here's the deal; we will give you the tax cuts, but if we don't get high economic growth and high wage growth, then you give them back, double. You want the tax payer to take all the risk with the 'promise' (wink, wink) that you will share your bounty with the rest of us. I say, put it in writing. If tax cuts are a 'can't lose' high growth proposition, then sign up to double our money if it doesn't work out.
3
Apparently, the motto of fat cats is "Keep it stupidly good for us, and the simpletons of America will continue to eat it up." nty
7
Four stooges wrote this article. Virtually nothing these men have said for years has made sense. They just want tax cuts for the rich donors who pay their salaries. This is a sham.
11
"Why are Republicans making tax reform so hard?
1. Trump has to make sure his businesses benefit, so he will only allow any kind of negotiation to occur within the GOP to proceed with that as the first goal.
2. The G.O.P.s adherence to the craziness of Trump, not holding him accountable for the conflicts-of-interest, false claims of wiretapping, snubbing allies while promoting dictators (i.e. Putin, Erdogan., etc.) makes the Democrats leery of attempting to negotiate and support anything coming from the GOP and/or Trump.
3. The current and ongoing 'war' in the GOP-led House, between the radical right and the "moderate" right, which kills all forms of major legislation consistently.
Thant's why. It is not rocket science.
1. Trump has to make sure his businesses benefit, so he will only allow any kind of negotiation to occur within the GOP to proceed with that as the first goal.
2. The G.O.P.s adherence to the craziness of Trump, not holding him accountable for the conflicts-of-interest, false claims of wiretapping, snubbing allies while promoting dictators (i.e. Putin, Erdogan., etc.) makes the Democrats leery of attempting to negotiate and support anything coming from the GOP and/or Trump.
3. The current and ongoing 'war' in the GOP-led House, between the radical right and the "moderate" right, which kills all forms of major legislation consistently.
Thant's why. It is not rocket science.
5
Forbes, Kudlow, Laffer, and Moore. What a crew. Same message. Cut taxes and our garden will flourish. Wrong. Here in California, we target taxes to change behavior, support public projects, invest in transportation, etc., etc., etc.. And... drum role here... Businesses flourish, 7th largest economy in the world, so many people flock here that most of our counties rate among the highest average incomes in the US, unemployment is low, economic growth is better than anywhere in the US. Forbes, Kudlow, Laffer, and Moore. Broken record. Stale message. Losers all.
10
If corporations & their CEOs are experiencing record profits, then how will cutting their taxes help their employees? The current income isn't getting put back into the workplace environment.
Small businesses need more breaks, but they don't have the powerful lobbys. Reduce THEIR tax burdens. In fact, if you wish to make America far more competitive, remove healthcare from being an employer's burden. Increase single payer or the Marketplace coverage. Remove the tax breaks and the responsibilities from employers. Too simple? Perhaps. But it does make more sense than cutting corporate taxes & the wealthy's taxes even more than they already are. The rest of the 95% need those tax breaks. Not those who the GOP serve.
Small businesses need more breaks, but they don't have the powerful lobbys. Reduce THEIR tax burdens. In fact, if you wish to make America far more competitive, remove healthcare from being an employer's burden. Increase single payer or the Marketplace coverage. Remove the tax breaks and the responsibilities from employers. Too simple? Perhaps. But it does make more sense than cutting corporate taxes & the wealthy's taxes even more than they already are. The rest of the 95% need those tax breaks. Not those who the GOP serve.
15
This is one of the most stupid plans that I've ever heard of, and one that the GOP has been flogging for decades. It hasn't worked so far, and failed time and again. The trickle down economics have failed since Reagan's time, why would you think it's still going to work? Our country prospered the most during the 1950s and 1960s when the corporate tax rate was at 91%. We built an interstate system, the working and middle class prospered with one adult in a couple/marriage could afford to support a family comfortably, and our financial system benefitted everyone.
14
I understand that the corporate tax rate is supposed to be 35%. What I want to know is this: what is the effective tax rate? In other words, what percentage do corporations actually pay? 12.6 % according to the GAO. So that is less than the 15% Trump says he wants. http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news/economy/corporate-tax-rate/o
12
Four economic cranks trying to sell trickle down as an economic miracle.
Snake oil.
Snake oil.
16
I appreciate the willingness of the NY Times to make the "pages" of the times open to a broad array of opinions but to allow these 4 authors to present their views without providing other conservative opinions amounts to editorial malfeasance.
This country is desperate for tax reform. Trust me. I read the tax code on a daily basis and it is a mess.
But you are not going to get a reform that serves the best interest of the nation as a whole by starting from a purely ideological perspective and then writing a new code to serve those ideological ends.
Start with research. What works?
Supply side economics is one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the American people and the 4 authors of this piece are some of the best-known fraudsters.
We need tax reform but tax reform driven by ideology will never pass. If Trump were smart, he would reach out to democrats on this issue. Otherwise, he is looking at another failure in a long list of failures. A proper reform does have the potential to do a lot to improve the economy and the lives of average Americans. However, the reforms put forth by these authors will widen the income gap, increase deficits and ultimately mean no reform.
How long do we have to keep having this debate?
I am reminded of the Great George H.W. Bush who referred to these very same polices presented here as "voodoo economics." But that was in the age of Republican Reason. Days long gone - sadly.
This country is desperate for tax reform. Trust me. I read the tax code on a daily basis and it is a mess.
But you are not going to get a reform that serves the best interest of the nation as a whole by starting from a purely ideological perspective and then writing a new code to serve those ideological ends.
Start with research. What works?
Supply side economics is one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the American people and the 4 authors of this piece are some of the best-known fraudsters.
We need tax reform but tax reform driven by ideology will never pass. If Trump were smart, he would reach out to democrats on this issue. Otherwise, he is looking at another failure in a long list of failures. A proper reform does have the potential to do a lot to improve the economy and the lives of average Americans. However, the reforms put forth by these authors will widen the income gap, increase deficits and ultimately mean no reform.
How long do we have to keep having this debate?
I am reminded of the Great George H.W. Bush who referred to these very same polices presented here as "voodoo economics." But that was in the age of Republican Reason. Days long gone - sadly.
14
The GOPe continues to collaborate with the secessionists. They're running dog lackeys of the global plutocracy as are the dems, administrative state, and their media poodles. Delay, Obstruct, Sabotage are their tactics, with the goal of destroying America as a nation state and bringing down our President.
A number of comments, as well as politicians' platforms, mention the necessity of a "total rewrite of the tax code".
But as they say in Maine, "you can't get there from here."
The only chance we have is to make incremental change. Not just to the tax code but to anything that affects the entire economy. To aspire to a "total rewrite" not only is unrealistic but also promises to do violence to the stability of the entire economy.
That said, I agree that 35% tax rate on business is too high - a 35% perceived rate. But as a number of people also point out, few businesses pay that. 35% is the salient aspect of the corporate tax - not the effective tax. If, at the same time as the rate is lowered, the breadth of deductions is also lowered, making the effort tax neutral, it would change the perception of taxes in the US, as well as reduce the creative accounting that currently dominates corporate strategy.
Though that might require a few less corporate tax lawyers. But McDonald's is hiring, so I don't feel too bad about them.
But as they say in Maine, "you can't get there from here."
The only chance we have is to make incremental change. Not just to the tax code but to anything that affects the entire economy. To aspire to a "total rewrite" not only is unrealistic but also promises to do violence to the stability of the entire economy.
That said, I agree that 35% tax rate on business is too high - a 35% perceived rate. But as a number of people also point out, few businesses pay that. 35% is the salient aspect of the corporate tax - not the effective tax. If, at the same time as the rate is lowered, the breadth of deductions is also lowered, making the effort tax neutral, it would change the perception of taxes in the US, as well as reduce the creative accounting that currently dominates corporate strategy.
Though that might require a few less corporate tax lawyers. But McDonald's is hiring, so I don't feel too bad about them.
1
Any tax reform that doesn't place tax simplification at the head of the list should be re-written. If tax preparation was simplified and it took no more than 15 to 30 minutes to do a years worth of taxes for an individual the appearance that "the rich" don't pay "their fair share" would decrease and everyone would be more confident in the fairness of the system. Sorry to the tax prep industry but most of the tax prep people I've met, although nice enough, should be doing something productive and not looking to sell another page of paper to jack up their bill. Further tax complications to help special interests need to be set aside and simplification needs to take center stage.
3
A Border Adjustment Tax (BAT) is questionable. You could potentially start a trade war. The tax, in the broadest sense, is applied on imports only. You can see how international partners might get upset. A manufacturer in Ohio can sell a product to the E.U. without incurring a tax but a manufacturer in Germany can't sell a product to Ohio without suffering a penalty.
The tax doesn't directly effect consumers. However, the problem for Republicans is a BAT disproportionately impacts import-oriented companies. Domestically oriented companies are spared the immediate impact. As such, importers are expected to pass the tax burden along to consumers in the form of higher prices. Still not a sales tax. More like Walmart price gouging consumers over a supply chain problem. Hence, we find the Reaganites out in force. They know a BAT won't pass.
The direction we should be heading though is towards a value added tax (VAT). Republicans likes to capitalize on the similar sounding names but they're actually quite different. VAT's are import-export neutral and don't disadvantage any sector of the economy or any specific country disproportionately. The system is actually more in harmony with small government, free market economics and global trade than our current system.
That's why the Arthur Laffers of the world hate the idea. Corporations would be taxed on consumption rather than income. Say goodbye to most loop wholes. The lobbying for a flat cut on corporate tax rates begins.
The tax doesn't directly effect consumers. However, the problem for Republicans is a BAT disproportionately impacts import-oriented companies. Domestically oriented companies are spared the immediate impact. As such, importers are expected to pass the tax burden along to consumers in the form of higher prices. Still not a sales tax. More like Walmart price gouging consumers over a supply chain problem. Hence, we find the Reaganites out in force. They know a BAT won't pass.
The direction we should be heading though is towards a value added tax (VAT). Republicans likes to capitalize on the similar sounding names but they're actually quite different. VAT's are import-export neutral and don't disadvantage any sector of the economy or any specific country disproportionately. The system is actually more in harmony with small government, free market economics and global trade than our current system.
That's why the Arthur Laffers of the world hate the idea. Corporations would be taxed on consumption rather than income. Say goodbye to most loop wholes. The lobbying for a flat cut on corporate tax rates begins.
2
The quartet of Steve Forbes, Larry Kudlow, Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore demonstrate that ideology trumps the lessons of history. No, cutting taxes does not automatically lead to increased revenue (Laffer Curve), increased wealth at the top does not "trickle down, and, as recent decades show, increased productivity does not benefit the guy on the street.
For example, see this generalized graph:
http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/steve-frank97B79EF6-7B76-EF06-72A...
For example, see this generalized graph:
http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/steve-frank97B79EF6-7B76-EF06-72A...
7
Here's the deal. As so many commentators on this piece have noted, this is a prescription from a bunch of non-credible "economists" for even greater wealth for the wealthy and greater economic disparity for everyone else.
But the part I don't get about the Forbes, Kudlow, Moore and Laffer crowd (the last of whom possesses a delightfully Dickensian name, given his track record) is that this trickle-down nonsense doesn't ultimately benefit them either.
Oh sure, their tax bills will be lower, and the percentage of income for them to (chuckle) "reinvest" will be higher. But unless income grows for those in the middle and those striving to get there, overall economic growth will be stymied. A lack of buying power for goods and services means lower overall profits in the long run.
More significantly, if the uberwealthy continue on the economic path that some of them seek to pursue, economic inequality will continue to grow, reaching levels never seen in our nation's history. Eventually, more and more of our fellow citizens will conclude that they have no stake in our society; that nothing they do will improve their economic lot. The U.S. will begin to look more and more like Central and South American countries did in the 20th century, with a tiny oligarchy controlling the economy, a very small middle class and a huge underclass.
And in Latin America, the results were consistently the same: widespread poverty, political instability and revolution.
But the part I don't get about the Forbes, Kudlow, Moore and Laffer crowd (the last of whom possesses a delightfully Dickensian name, given his track record) is that this trickle-down nonsense doesn't ultimately benefit them either.
Oh sure, their tax bills will be lower, and the percentage of income for them to (chuckle) "reinvest" will be higher. But unless income grows for those in the middle and those striving to get there, overall economic growth will be stymied. A lack of buying power for goods and services means lower overall profits in the long run.
More significantly, if the uberwealthy continue on the economic path that some of them seek to pursue, economic inequality will continue to grow, reaching levels never seen in our nation's history. Eventually, more and more of our fellow citizens will conclude that they have no stake in our society; that nothing they do will improve their economic lot. The U.S. will begin to look more and more like Central and South American countries did in the 20th century, with a tiny oligarchy controlling the economy, a very small middle class and a huge underclass.
And in Latin America, the results were consistently the same: widespread poverty, political instability and revolution.
8
One element of tax reform that I would like to see is to conscript as many U.S. citizens into the 'Taxpayer' category as feasible. Today about 50% of citizens pay zero dollars in taxes, and many of these even receive a 'refund' after paying zero dollars. These people create an overwhelming majority of citizens who couldn't care less how the government spends the taxpayer's dollars, as long as some of it flows to them. Spreading the tax burden in this manner would have two advantages: (1) a far greater amount of taxes can be collected if tax rates are raised by a just a small amount among the general population rather than trying to fleece the rich, and (2) these new taxpayers would start to pay attention to how their tax dollars are being spent. If this sounds heartless you are probably not paying your fair share of taxes.
2
Dave you do realize that any number of citizens do not work because they are too young (at least until Republicans allow child labor again) or past retirement. Or are the wife dutifully married to a male head of household. (Not to mention the number of men dependent on the female wage earners.) Or are rednecks sitting on the porch with a beer complaining about all the other people not working so he get a new gun for the pickup.
7
Let's see Steve, I know I am just a dummy so please be patient with me. While I see that you expect the "low tax on the repatriation" to bring in $2 trillion to the US Treasury, I didn't see what you expect the cutting of the corporate tax rate to 15% (less than my rate I should note) and allowing deduction of full cost of business capital (as opposed to my household capital outlay) would cost the treasury. Nor do I see any mention of where the money needed by the government would come from to make up the difference from the tax cuts but I suspect that the Government will need to make it up from me. And the other people working for far less than $250,000 a year. I also suspect that the businesses are expecting the same level of service and support from the Government along with lower taxes.
So lower taxes that someone else picks up the tab for. Maintain levels of service to the corporate entities. Do I have that about right Steve?
So lower taxes that someone else picks up the tab for. Maintain levels of service to the corporate entities. Do I have that about right Steve?
2
Supply side economics have produced nothing of worth to the average American. So many other comments here have laid out that case better than I could.
So let me address one of the aspects of this article that jumped out at me. Infrastructure spending.
These authors seem to think that the best way to expand and repair infrastructure would be to license private corporations to do so, and to recoup their investments by putting up tolls on those roads and bridges. I can't think of a more regressive and onerous means of improving this country than that.
Last summer, I traveled to Chicago, where I hadn't been in a few years. To get to the lakefront area, we passed at least 12 toll spots, few of them clearly marked as necessary stops, several requiring exact change in the form of coins, and all of them adding up to a considerable expense. Those with the misfortune of having to live in Chicago purchase electronic devices to register payments at a slightly lower rate per month. The money paid doesn't go to expanding roads and access, but are profits for whatever companies own the roads.
Americans used to own our roads. We paid for them with taxes, at a much lower rate. I still pay taxes. And I don't see an end to any of these toll roads. Those companies will continue to rake in money from Americans, and we will get more and more of these abominations.
So let me address one of the aspects of this article that jumped out at me. Infrastructure spending.
These authors seem to think that the best way to expand and repair infrastructure would be to license private corporations to do so, and to recoup their investments by putting up tolls on those roads and bridges. I can't think of a more regressive and onerous means of improving this country than that.
Last summer, I traveled to Chicago, where I hadn't been in a few years. To get to the lakefront area, we passed at least 12 toll spots, few of them clearly marked as necessary stops, several requiring exact change in the form of coins, and all of them adding up to a considerable expense. Those with the misfortune of having to live in Chicago purchase electronic devices to register payments at a slightly lower rate per month. The money paid doesn't go to expanding roads and access, but are profits for whatever companies own the roads.
Americans used to own our roads. We paid for them with taxes, at a much lower rate. I still pay taxes. And I don't see an end to any of these toll roads. Those companies will continue to rake in money from Americans, and we will get more and more of these abominations.
2
This crowd shouldn't be allowed near the tax code. The Kennedy-era tax cut circumstances no longer apply, and the Reagan tax cut launched a 35-year national decline. Corporate tax rates are soon going to need to be much higher to compensate for the loss of income tax on wages due to automation.
3
the real wonder here is why the NYT would devote this much space to the oligarchs whose rush to wealth has devastated the former middle class.
the article itself is so full of inaccuracies and outright, deliberate deceptions,
that the 1500-character-limit herein makes it impossible to fairly rebut these
ancient and discredited fables.
that it is possible that these extremely wealthy individuals actually believe any of this stuff tells us far more than their empty, old slogans.
had they had any interest whatsoever in the well being of the entirety of this country,
they would have simultaneously created retraining and reeducation
programs for the individuals whose jobs they intentionally sent overseas in order to make these
guys wealthier than the pharaohs, rather than leaving them in broken down towns with no replacement opportunities of any kind.
it remains staggering the lengths to which this quartet will go to insure that their ill-gotten wealth is increased in the future while the masses are literally re-sacrificed anew.
one potential bright spot:
should the programs that they outline succeed in passing this legislature,
the 2018, 2020, and 2022 election results will reverse this one-way course for once and for all.
3
The lack of bi-partisan collaboration, special interests, lobbyists, and free-spending PACs have made legislation not only hard but ineffective. The more complex the issues, the more they attract all of those wanting to feed on what they know will be a carcass. Then we have this group of advocates advocating threadbare tax and economic positions that have been proved to fail, or at least certainly not work as promised.
Taxes can be far better with the right approaches. So can health care, environmental protection, civil rights and voting, and so much more. When have we seen that come out of Congress, except for legislation that is filled with more unintended consequences that anticipated ones?
Taxes can be far better with the right approaches. So can health care, environmental protection, civil rights and voting, and so much more. When have we seen that come out of Congress, except for legislation that is filled with more unintended consequences that anticipated ones?
1
I like this proposal. It is true that trying to do too much in one bill will only lead to disaster.
I do think that this line is misleading: "A study by the Tax Foundation and Kevin A. Hassett, ..., found that middle-class wages rise when business taxes fall." This is misleading because it is not lower taxes that raise wages, but the increase in production that lower taxes creates. Lower taxes for businesses and corporations will only benefit the middle-class if it leads to an expansion of business and production; an expansion in the demand for more and better workers.
I like this plan and I think something to increase production is necessary, but we should be wary of those in charge of business and corporations. If, for example, corporate leaders choose to use profits (from tax cuts or some other means) to boost their own stock (since the pay for many of these leaders is directly determined by the stock price), then this plan will fail. I like the idea of using infrastructure to reach across the aisle, but perhaps some measure to ensure that profit is used to increase production (such as stopping this kind of corporate pay) would be another great addition to this proposal.
I do think that this line is misleading: "A study by the Tax Foundation and Kevin A. Hassett, ..., found that middle-class wages rise when business taxes fall." This is misleading because it is not lower taxes that raise wages, but the increase in production that lower taxes creates. Lower taxes for businesses and corporations will only benefit the middle-class if it leads to an expansion of business and production; an expansion in the demand for more and better workers.
I like this plan and I think something to increase production is necessary, but we should be wary of those in charge of business and corporations. If, for example, corporate leaders choose to use profits (from tax cuts or some other means) to boost their own stock (since the pay for many of these leaders is directly determined by the stock price), then this plan will fail. I like the idea of using infrastructure to reach across the aisle, but perhaps some measure to ensure that profit is used to increase production (such as stopping this kind of corporate pay) would be another great addition to this proposal.
The US has a revenue problem. We collect too little in taxes to fund the country. Taxing salaried income at higher rates than investment income has expanded inequality and stunted tax receipts.
We can lower corporate taxes but we need to raise taxes on investors, cap deductions and aggressively pursue the deadbeats and fraud.
We can lower corporate taxes but we need to raise taxes on investors, cap deductions and aggressively pursue the deadbeats and fraud.
3
in response to this article's headline:
because the republican't party is fighting over which of their members will be afforded the larger slices of the pie going forward, while the masses are left further and further behind, by design.
greed among thieves is legendary.
a pox on all of their houses.
progressives will turn-out these characters in 2018, 2020, and 2022.
1
President Trump and Paul Ryan might be able to agree that revenue neutrality is not nevessary, but a tax bill that increases the deficit cannot be passed by reconciliation. It will need 60 votes, and any infrastructure package that could attract at least 8 Democratic votes will almost surely be shot down be the tea party caucus in the House. Sorry, guys, without the budget headroom that would have been created by gutting the ACA, I don't see his happening.
1
Until 'unearned' income is taxed at the same rates as earned income we have a problem. Our current system favors those who don't have to move a muscle over those who do.
2
Smoke and mirrors from four of the most expert illusionists.
Their 'proposal' is a rehash of their TV and radio talking points. Consider just one of their fundamentals: US corporations pay the highest taxes in the world. This is true only if that corporation has hired the CEO's brother-in-law's neighbor's nephew to manage taxes: the 35% figure is mitigated by all sorts of deductions (depreciation, credits, and the like).
Perhaps another way to see behind the curtain is to remember that these four folks have gotten along just fine, thank you very much, in a country with such a high corporate tax burden that companies have no incentive to . . . what? Oh, yes; increase senior management pay to obscene levels while fighting unions and minimum-wage laws, while de-funding pensions and cutting back on health insurance plans. Just think how much CEOs could be paid with lower taxes to pay! Now there's a real American dream!
It's a pity that Ringling Bros. is closing. These guys could have wowed the crowds with their magic show in the center ring: the Fantasyworld Four.
Their 'proposal' is a rehash of their TV and radio talking points. Consider just one of their fundamentals: US corporations pay the highest taxes in the world. This is true only if that corporation has hired the CEO's brother-in-law's neighbor's nephew to manage taxes: the 35% figure is mitigated by all sorts of deductions (depreciation, credits, and the like).
Perhaps another way to see behind the curtain is to remember that these four folks have gotten along just fine, thank you very much, in a country with such a high corporate tax burden that companies have no incentive to . . . what? Oh, yes; increase senior management pay to obscene levels while fighting unions and minimum-wage laws, while de-funding pensions and cutting back on health insurance plans. Just think how much CEOs could be paid with lower taxes to pay! Now there's a real American dream!
It's a pity that Ringling Bros. is closing. These guys could have wowed the crowds with their magic show in the center ring: the Fantasyworld Four.
3
"The Republicans tried to fix the trillion-dollar health insurance market instead of keeping the focus on repealing Obamacare." They did? Taking health insurance away from 24 million people who currently have it is fixing the health insurance market?
2
The trickle down tax policy. Tax rates for businesses today is 9% because of deductions. If we went to 15%, there would be little if any corporate tax collected. Give businesses even more tax breaks at the top on increase deductions, and three allow a whole bunch of corps to abuse the tax structure in place today. Incredible. If the poor and middle class don't have money, they can't buy anything. How hard is that for Republicans to understand.
Why don't we have a .5% transaction tax on all stock and bond purchases and sales. Then have a new FICA tax of 7.65% on all other income. Now that's tax reform.
Why don't we have a .5% transaction tax on all stock and bond purchases and sales. Then have a new FICA tax of 7.65% on all other income. Now that's tax reform.
2
Good lord! Why not just say it straight: "Give us obscenely wealthy folks more, and watch all the crumbs fall off our table for the rest of you peons to gobble up..."
4
Tax cuts are why Republicans pretend to care about governance, but tax cuts are also known as tax spending because they rarely pay for themselves and will increase debt and deficit. Business already has record profits and averages 16 percent in tax liabilities now, with some paying no taxes or even receiving refunds.
The middle class doesn't need tax cuts. This idea of paying less in taxes but receiving all the benefits of government services and programs is another conservative myth. A more efficient tax system, with a value-added tax, would generate far more revenue. The U.S. has one of the developed world's most inefficient tax systems as a percentage of GDP.
Reagan raised taxes as often as he cut them because tax spending kept driving up the deficit during his years in office. Of course, Reagan couldn't get elected as a Republican in the twenty-first century. He was too moderate to be successful in today's party. With their typical hypocrisy, Republicans praise Reagan but exhibit none of his willingness to compromise and acknowledge fiscal and economic realities.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
The middle class doesn't need tax cuts. This idea of paying less in taxes but receiving all the benefits of government services and programs is another conservative myth. A more efficient tax system, with a value-added tax, would generate far more revenue. The U.S. has one of the developed world's most inefficient tax systems as a percentage of GDP.
Reagan raised taxes as often as he cut them because tax spending kept driving up the deficit during his years in office. Of course, Reagan couldn't get elected as a Republican in the twenty-first century. He was too moderate to be successful in today's party. With their typical hypocrisy, Republicans praise Reagan but exhibit none of his willingness to compromise and acknowledge fiscal and economic realities.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
4
Those low rax rates you reference exist because companies have shipped operations overseas to avoid our punitive tax rates. Don't bother challenging that statement because I help companies do it for a living. I know infinitely more about our tax system than you are capable of understanding. Liberals have chased businesses away with their insatiable greed.
2
Why should we tax the rich and the obscenely rich? Because that's where the money is, and where it is all going to.
8
GOP use of "Reform" means more tax-breaks for the wealthy.
Period.
Period.
8
I'm not sure it's a good thing that the Times tries to be politically ecumenical and offer a range of opinions, while the right wing publications eschew publishing even baseline middle of the road Keynesians. Democrats and middle of the road views, let alone leftie views, are vanquished components of current political life. It might be wise for the NYT to devote valuable space such as this to the articulation of coherent Democratic alternatives. When the WSJ is regularly publishing Krugman type views (though not their dominant perspective), I would feel a bit better about articles such as this in the NYT. Meantime I feel we're being played for saps.
5
They can't work with one another like the democrats
Plus some republicans want to stop the trump agenda. They just don't get it. This will be the last republican president. The democrats have accomplished an over throw of the government by bringing in immigrants that will vote democrat
All using our tax dollars.
Plus some republicans want to stop the trump agenda. They just don't get it. This will be the last republican president. The democrats have accomplished an over throw of the government by bringing in immigrants that will vote democrat
All using our tax dollars.
1
The issue is not about illegal immigrant voters. Most of them don't vote for fear of somehow getting caught and deported. And, poor people vote less in terms of the percentage of their population than do second, third, etc. generation Americans.
The Democratic overthrow has not occurred yet. It will come over the next 2-3 years as Republican policies prove to be detrimental to the Middle Class and Joe the steel worker comes to see he has been duped.
The Democratic overthrow has not occurred yet. It will come over the next 2-3 years as Republican policies prove to be detrimental to the Middle Class and Joe the steel worker comes to see he has been duped.
What a stupid question. The GOP only has two goals in life: how to give the 1% more tax cuts. And how to make it look like it's good for the 99%. Their great fear is that the 99% will catch on! Their goals and their fear combine to put them into paralysis. Tada! Nothing happens.
4
The Republicans are making tax reform so hard because they want to slip in there tax 'reform' measures that are payback to their billionaire masters: More tax cuts for the already very very wealthy and the holy grail, zero estate taxes so that they might live like monarchs and perpetuate their dynasties.
2
This proposal by very rich, prominent right-wingers and 1%ers is a blatant example of the oligarchic greedy-cats' brilliant class war on the 60 per-cent of the least moneyed Americans whom they despise so much. The "experts" are dedicated to one thing: making the rich richer!"
1
It is clear to all that the authors' goal is not to improve the tax code, but to continue the upward redistribution of wealth at all costs.
2
This is how trickle-down works. GOP promises their supporters that they will repeal Obamacare. The supporters they are speaking to are their large donors and the wealthiest citizens. Repealing Obamacare will give these people a large tax cut.
Receiving this bounty, the wealthy supporters will tickle-down more money to the GOP campaigns. Who will then be able to upgrade all of their staffs smart phones.
If the lower and middle class want to assume that health insurance reform is for their benefit, well, that's their lookout.
Receiving this bounty, the wealthy supporters will tickle-down more money to the GOP campaigns. Who will then be able to upgrade all of their staffs smart phones.
If the lower and middle class want to assume that health insurance reform is for their benefit, well, that's their lookout.
1
Tax cuts should be revenue neutral, i.e. taxes lost from corporations should be made up by increasing individual income taxes.
The answer is simple. There are (3 facets in the current iteration of the GOP. The non-traditional Trumps, the traditional Conservatives, and the Libertarian Tea Party. They do not like each other and have a strictly partisan approach to their responsibilities.
1
If I understand the author's intent here, it is to cut taxes as a first step, then later raise taxes by closing loopholes.
There is zero chance that a scheme like this will work-- sure, the first part will happen, but for any of several trillion reasons the second part just won't come to pass.
There is zero chance that a scheme like this will work-- sure, the first part will happen, but for any of several trillion reasons the second part just won't come to pass.
The authors' justification for their plan is primarily that similar ideas were successful under Reagan. Let's look at what happened under Reagan:
-Real wages decreased (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wages)
-Federal debt as a percentage of GDP increased dramatically and for the first time since World War II (according to the Congressional Budget Office: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:51129-land-summaryfigure1(1).png)
This increase in federal debt wasn't a "short term" effect, as the authors of the article claim the debt increase caused by their plan would be. The real wage decrease shows that regardless of what Reagan did for corporate profits, this plan didn't "spur the economy" for most Americans.
Empirical evidence, even the evidence cherry picked by the authors to support the case, clearly shows that their ideas are associated with lower wages and skyrocketing debt.
-Real wages decreased (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wages)
-Federal debt as a percentage of GDP increased dramatically and for the first time since World War II (according to the Congressional Budget Office: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:51129-land-summaryfigure1(1).png)
This increase in federal debt wasn't a "short term" effect, as the authors of the article claim the debt increase caused by their plan would be. The real wage decrease shows that regardless of what Reagan did for corporate profits, this plan didn't "spur the economy" for most Americans.
Empirical evidence, even the evidence cherry picked by the authors to support the case, clearly shows that their ideas are associated with lower wages and skyrocketing debt.
2
How about Payroll tax cut that provides more spending money for middle-class wage earners?
How about enabling rent to be deducted from tax? Thus enabling the poor to have more spending money?
How about ensuring medical insurance premiums are income tax deductible?
How about enabling rent to be deducted from tax? Thus enabling the poor to have more spending money?
How about ensuring medical insurance premiums are income tax deductible?
1
Both parties are to blame. So it was with insurance reform. The people seeking political power are venial. They hype "education" to use a degree not to learn or solve problems but to bully. Raw power is the name of the game. Democracy is a great illusion. More complexity is a tool, not a solution.
So, more tax breaks for investment in capital and machinery which ultimately is used to eliminate workers. Just wonderful!! How about reducing or eliminating the corporate tax credit for driving more automation and creating a corporate tax credit for creating more well paid jobs? With out real, broad based growth im jobs and wages we will eventually shut down the domestic economy due to simple lack of purchasing power. The 1%-ers simply don't get the real world, and don't want to be bothered with real facts.
The authors fail to explain why lower corporate taxes would lead to higher wages for employees. Record profits at corporations certainly didn't lead to higher wages, so what (we should all wonder) makes lowering taxes for corporations so different?
Republicans love the trickle-down theory of economics, but the reality is that the economy booms when we seek trickle-up economic policies: give the 98% more money to spend, and corporations will sell more goods, builders will sell more houses, and people will have more money to put towards retirement savings.
Which is more likely to help the economy: give the people who spend money more money to spend, or give those that horde money more money to horde?
Republicans love the trickle-down theory of economics, but the reality is that the economy booms when we seek trickle-up economic policies: give the 98% more money to spend, and corporations will sell more goods, builders will sell more houses, and people will have more money to put towards retirement savings.
Which is more likely to help the economy: give the people who spend money more money to spend, or give those that horde money more money to horde?
1
"The Republicans tried to fix the trillion-dollar health insurance market instead of keeping the focus on repealing Obamacare." That is, the Republicans should have just thrown 24 million people off of health insurance?
That's about the same attitude that permeates the rest of the piece, no concern for working Americans.
"First, cut the federal corporate and small-business highest tax rate.." Why even throw in the words "small-business," which is already included in the word "corporate?" Just to elicit sympathy for their corporate tax cut?
These guys are just out to have the wealthy like themselves pay less taxes and shift the tax burden to working people. There's no reason why return on capital should be taxed less than return on work.
And "private financing of toll roads" means having working people pay tolls instead of taxing their buddies to pay for the road system that makes them their fortunes.
It's a wonder that anyone takes these people seriously after all the past trickle down failures.
That's about the same attitude that permeates the rest of the piece, no concern for working Americans.
"First, cut the federal corporate and small-business highest tax rate.." Why even throw in the words "small-business," which is already included in the word "corporate?" Just to elicit sympathy for their corporate tax cut?
These guys are just out to have the wealthy like themselves pay less taxes and shift the tax burden to working people. There's no reason why return on capital should be taxed less than return on work.
And "private financing of toll roads" means having working people pay tolls instead of taxing their buddies to pay for the road system that makes them their fortunes.
It's a wonder that anyone takes these people seriously after all the past trickle down failures.
2
Oh yes, these are many of the same geniuses who supported the Reagan tax cuts and supply side economics. Tax revenues did not increase, only income inequality and deficit spending. A corporate tax rate reduction to 15% will only work if all the loopholes and deductions are removed. Fat chance of that happening.
1
1) Laffer is the father of Reagan trickle down economics. A complete joke. Zero credibility.
2) Funding infrastructure with tax credits - yes, it will create jobs. But the only infrastructure this will encourage is projects (like toll roads) that produce income for the owners, and the owners will be the corporations, not the American people. So the loss of income taxes thru those tax credits will be recouped (via tolls) by the corporations, not the US taxpayer. And the tolls are paid for by US taxpayers, who then get to pay TWICE for such roads. As if toll roads and bridges are what we need anyway. If the infrastructure is not a toll producing project, then it still will improve the profits of the corporations - none of those profits will return to the taxpayers who partially funded them. Furthermore, those corporate profits will be taxed at a lower rate.
Really great deal for main street.
2) Funding infrastructure with tax credits - yes, it will create jobs. But the only infrastructure this will encourage is projects (like toll roads) that produce income for the owners, and the owners will be the corporations, not the American people. So the loss of income taxes thru those tax credits will be recouped (via tolls) by the corporations, not the US taxpayer. And the tolls are paid for by US taxpayers, who then get to pay TWICE for such roads. As if toll roads and bridges are what we need anyway. If the infrastructure is not a toll producing project, then it still will improve the profits of the corporations - none of those profits will return to the taxpayers who partially funded them. Furthermore, those corporate profits will be taxed at a lower rate.
Really great deal for main street.
3
The idea of funding infrastructure with private equity is terrible. The government does not need private equity, it is fully capable of getting a loan and, once the project is finished, we should not have to pay for the profit that the private firms will extract from the project while, all the while, cutting as many corners as possible to maximize the profits. What is strikingly missing from the plan is the closing or corporate loopholes. Why is this group so very interested in cutting taxes and spending, but not interested in somehow balancing the budget? Curious.
1
Republicans and democrats are all alike after an election. The only thing they're really interested in is money. They don't want cuts, because that cuts what they can line their pockets with.
Term limits are the only solution. kick every last one of them out and start over.
Term limits are the only solution. kick every last one of them out and start over.
1
We really don't need tax reform, which is code for cutting taxes for the rich and corporations. What we need is really just to tax the rich more, and use it to fund those left behind by unfettered capitalism (e.g., white men without college degrees in rural areas).
Some great examples include:
1. Treating capital gains and dividends as ordinary income for the top 1% alone brings in $100/billion per year according to CBO, as they get almost 70% of the benefit. That's about one-fifth of the deficit.
2. Removing the cap on the payroll tax, which raises taxes for those making over $127,500 per year. That covers about 70% of the Social Security shortfall for the next 75 years.
3. Much higher marginal income tax rates on incomes over $300,000.
4. An estate tax with teeth, as the top 1% now have 42% of the wealth vs. 25% pre-Reagan.
The goal should be to bring in about 23% GDP in tax revenue, as that is where expenses are headed with our aging population.
Some great examples include:
1. Treating capital gains and dividends as ordinary income for the top 1% alone brings in $100/billion per year according to CBO, as they get almost 70% of the benefit. That's about one-fifth of the deficit.
2. Removing the cap on the payroll tax, which raises taxes for those making over $127,500 per year. That covers about 70% of the Social Security shortfall for the next 75 years.
3. Much higher marginal income tax rates on incomes over $300,000.
4. An estate tax with teeth, as the top 1% now have 42% of the wealth vs. 25% pre-Reagan.
The goal should be to bring in about 23% GDP in tax revenue, as that is where expenses are headed with our aging population.
3
The Laffer Curve rises from the grave once again! Prof. Krugman is right, these evidence-free policy-makers can never be discredited enough. If we buy this, what is next, snake oil sales on the White House lawn? Oh, wait....
Anything by this crew is basically self serving and especially the highly discredited Arthur Laffer. His goofy stuff ruined Kansas.
4
I wonder whether the NYT publishes stuff like this to appear "balanced", or as a trial balloon to see from comments if the typical reader is shifting positions, and Editorial and Op Ed should take notice?
4
The roads that the authors want to "privatize" are built or to be built on the public's land. More of a stealth land grab by the wealthy.
7
"Why Are Republican Making Tax Reform So Hard?" The answer is quite obvious and much easier than Mssr. Forbes, Kudlow, Gaffer, and Moore imagine: it is simply that Republicans are very good at campaigning but haven't a clue how to govern.
2
Arthur "Laugher"? We are taking tax advice again from Mr. Supply-Side (aka "Voodoo") Economics? Where to start ... How about a small tax on repatriation. Didn't we try that before, and didn't the multinationals go right back to the tax havens?
Not to mention toll roads. Yeah those really work for the middle class.
Just more of the same from the Republican brain trust: cut taxes on the rich, and it will trickle down to the rest of us.
No thanks. Been there, done that, and found it did not result in jobs or reinvestment, just collateralized debt obligations and fiscal ruin.
Not to mention toll roads. Yeah those really work for the middle class.
Just more of the same from the Republican brain trust: cut taxes on the rich, and it will trickle down to the rest of us.
No thanks. Been there, done that, and found it did not result in jobs or reinvestment, just collateralized debt obligations and fiscal ruin.
3
Sure thing fellers.
As long as with the corporate tax cuts comes a guarantee in writing that wages will go up by the same rate as the tax cut.
For example if we decrease the 35% corporate tax rate (no American corporation ever actually pays 35%...GE for instance pays a 0% corporate tax rate) to 15% then wages ha EA to go up by 20%.
And if you fellers can't guarantee that wage increase then you can go back to destroying Kansas' economy while we Americans continue battling rights trash like you four.
As long as with the corporate tax cuts comes a guarantee in writing that wages will go up by the same rate as the tax cut.
For example if we decrease the 35% corporate tax rate (no American corporation ever actually pays 35%...GE for instance pays a 0% corporate tax rate) to 15% then wages ha EA to go up by 20%.
And if you fellers can't guarantee that wage increase then you can go back to destroying Kansas' economy while we Americans continue battling rights trash like you four.
4
Simple most of these "republicans" are nothing but globalists. Like democrats they don't work for America or the American eople, they work for the elite. They could fix the tax mess by going with the Fair Tax, but that would work, and get rid of the IRS, not good for the elite.
1
This plan has worked so well in Kansas.
11
No to 'private' financing of infrastructure. It will be a get rich quick scheme for the biggest corporations and will only bring improved infrastructure and jobs to the biggest markets. Trumps rural supporters will be left high and dry.
2
Since when should we give credence to any material with Kudlow's byline? Is it a totally insane idea to ram through a tax cut to prop up the stock market? Until Trump releases his tax returns there should be no discussion of tax reform - period.
4
NYT - if I wanted to listen to 'fake balance' and fact free debate, I'd turn to CNN. This editorial by a group of thoroughly discredited ideologues with no academci standing is beneath the Times. We expect better from the paper of record.
Just check the commetns section for feedback.
Just check the commetns section for feedback.
10
Conservatives love to affirm "Corporations are People", so why don't Corporations pay the same income tax rate as other people?
Paying taxes is the responsibility of all citizens, so let the Corporations pay their fair share like everyone else. Freedom is not free; taxes are the price for living in a free country.
Paying taxes is the responsibility of all citizens, so let the Corporations pay their fair share like everyone else. Freedom is not free; taxes are the price for living in a free country.
5
These so-called advisors must be smoking especially strong pot to believe that economic conditions in 2017 only differ from those in the 1970s and 80s by only by the magnitiude of corporate and small business tax rates! What about the negative/depressing economic effects from millions of Americans employed to produce absolutely nothing except a false sense of security to counter societal fear Republican politicians rely on to remain in office?
By the way, the employment rate is Oregon is the lowest it's ever been and having a so-called president who lies, clearly is morally bankrupt and must be a crook (or he'd reveal his sources of income and funding for his narcissistic businesses) does not model honest tax reporting for the rest of the country - individuals and businesses large and small. Is anyone surprised that the Republican, "pigs at the trough", Party has no clue how to do anything to truly help the majority of Americans imptrove their lives?
By the way, the employment rate is Oregon is the lowest it's ever been and having a so-called president who lies, clearly is morally bankrupt and must be a crook (or he'd reveal his sources of income and funding for his narcissistic businesses) does not model honest tax reporting for the rest of the country - individuals and businesses large and small. Is anyone surprised that the Republican, "pigs at the trough", Party has no clue how to do anything to truly help the majority of Americans imptrove their lives?
6
So why cant the contractor or landscaper take full equipment deductions?
Even as a start up, the cost of equipment can set a small biz way back. Oh? We're not talking about truly small businesses...but that thing defined as small, but which is really a pretty big type of small business? Oops, sorry, my bad for thinking what every other naive American thinks when they think small biz, when its mentioned ad nauseum by every Republican candidate.
That its never about the true Mom/Pops on Main st, or out by the tracks...or the ones being started in the garages and basements and kitchen tables all over the country...doomed by an absurd tax code for such small ventures.
All I read here was some form of trickle down...yet again.
Why not for the first time in American history - focus the initial step in tax reforms on the middle and lower classes!?!? What? Am I crazy? Thinking that simplifying the tax codes, the tax filing process, etc, for those making diddly would be a good place to start.
I must have slept with a wet head and the window open and caught a chill.
But imagine the political win for the Repubs and Trump, if they actually helped the very constituency that votes for them, that they keep seducing and making more promises to. Imagine that instead of their jive 3 card Monty tax code games, the benefits of which the vast majority of the population never reaps.
I must be crazy...sick in the head...
Even as a start up, the cost of equipment can set a small biz way back. Oh? We're not talking about truly small businesses...but that thing defined as small, but which is really a pretty big type of small business? Oops, sorry, my bad for thinking what every other naive American thinks when they think small biz, when its mentioned ad nauseum by every Republican candidate.
That its never about the true Mom/Pops on Main st, or out by the tracks...or the ones being started in the garages and basements and kitchen tables all over the country...doomed by an absurd tax code for such small ventures.
All I read here was some form of trickle down...yet again.
Why not for the first time in American history - focus the initial step in tax reforms on the middle and lower classes!?!? What? Am I crazy? Thinking that simplifying the tax codes, the tax filing process, etc, for those making diddly would be a good place to start.
I must have slept with a wet head and the window open and caught a chill.
But imagine the political win for the Repubs and Trump, if they actually helped the very constituency that votes for them, that they keep seducing and making more promises to. Imagine that instead of their jive 3 card Monty tax code games, the benefits of which the vast majority of the population never reaps.
I must be crazy...sick in the head...
1
This is a well written Op Ed rife with misinformation and out-right drivel. Congrats to the authors. It's surprising it took four of you to write it. Deception ain't a one man show anymore?
8
Why does the Times publish this kind of anti-progressive stuff? These are not valid tax reforms, and surely the editors can see that. It smacks of the false equivalence reporting that was so devastating to the presidential election campaign.
There is no need to have a spurious "balance" of good and bad ideas in the New York Times -- no need to give a platform to impractical, kleptocratic ideas like these. I would go read the Wall Street Journal editorials instead, if that were what I was interested in. The only value of pieces like this is to afford readers an opportunity for venting outrage.
There is no need to have a spurious "balance" of good and bad ideas in the New York Times -- no need to give a platform to impractical, kleptocratic ideas like these. I would go read the Wall Street Journal editorials instead, if that were what I was interested in. The only value of pieces like this is to afford readers an opportunity for venting outrage.
3
Although they've been a bit wordy about it, the authors have described what Ryan-McConnell will do, and Trump won't interfere. That "tax reform" will consist of "lower taxes, less regulation, smaller government", all paid for by the 99% and all to fatten off-shore tax havens. Simple indeed. The only question that might come up is whether the voters are stupid enough to swallow the propaganda that they aren't going to be stuck with the bill.
It's worked before. Ryan has his speech memorized. The GOP has the votes.
Can the Dems make clear to voters what's going on? So far it doesn't look like it. They're too busy with internal hen-pecking to notice that voters need leadership, commitment, and may we add, convincing.
It's worked before. Ryan has his speech memorized. The GOP has the votes.
Can the Dems make clear to voters what's going on? So far it doesn't look like it. They're too busy with internal hen-pecking to notice that voters need leadership, commitment, and may we add, convincing.
4
Fun fact......."did you know that Art Laffer is known by the nickname ("All-The-Way-To-The-Bank Laffer?")
2
Like repeal & replace, tax reform is too big for the GOP to handle.
Look at their body of work over the past 10-20 years. Big things are too hard/ complicated for them to execute.
If you want to start a war or deliver huge taxes breaks (some times at the same time) -that's your party of choice.
If you want to enact policy and get things done...well ....they are not the party of choice!
Under GOP leadership tax reform will go no where.
(BTW- How is that wall coming along?)
Single Payer Now!
Look at their body of work over the past 10-20 years. Big things are too hard/ complicated for them to execute.
If you want to start a war or deliver huge taxes breaks (some times at the same time) -that's your party of choice.
If you want to enact policy and get things done...well ....they are not the party of choice!
Under GOP leadership tax reform will go no where.
(BTW- How is that wall coming along?)
Single Payer Now!
3
Of the four authors, two have economic degrees. When it says "advised the Trump presidential campaign on economic policy" was this a 10 minute listening session or a broadcast from Fox and Friends?
1
This is because they are not Republicans. Like their Democrat siblings, they are committed to self interest only. A class of degenerate parasites that live, breed and then destroy their host, the American taxpayer. The taxpayers wish a slow painful one to each of them.
2
Seems like the commenters here are rightly enraged that the Times gives scarce op-ed space to the likes of these guys, whose ideas have long been discredited and who occupy late-night radio talk shows with their nonsense. Sorry to see it published here in the pages of the Times where some will take it seriously.
5
Arthur Laffler? This article is proof that no one is ever too inept or corrupt to flunk out of DC. If ANYONE cared what Steve Forbes thought they would've VOTED for him.
3
This suggested tax plan is like expanding a penthouse by using materials stripped from the foundation and floors below. Hey, you guys underneath us --
you'll get extra space too, once we take out your structural columns and fire exits! We all benefit, right? Why should we have to follow building codes anyway -- won't we spend our own money more wisely than government does?
Gentlemen, when collapses happen, they destroy rich and poor together. Best think about it now, because you may not have the luxury of time.
you'll get extra space too, once we take out your structural columns and fire exits! We all benefit, right? Why should we have to follow building codes anyway -- won't we spend our own money more wisely than government does?
Gentlemen, when collapses happen, they destroy rich and poor together. Best think about it now, because you may not have the luxury of time.
3
Good Lord. Are "thinkers" still turning the crank on the long-ago debunked claim that Kennedy tax cut (on capital gains) "unleashed" a surge in prosperity and tax revenues?
Plus, everything "Terri" says is spot on.
One might urge readers (and the three geniuses who cobbled up this article) to remember that the previous "tax holiday" was intended to cause a surge of much-needed capital investment (of the repatriated funds), but instead resulted in a surge of dividends and outsized bonuses.
Plus, everything "Terri" says is spot on.
One might urge readers (and the three geniuses who cobbled up this article) to remember that the previous "tax holiday" was intended to cause a surge of much-needed capital investment (of the repatriated funds), but instead resulted in a surge of dividends and outsized bonuses.
2
The joys of reading this demented screed go on forever.
First, Trump has a genius tax plan that the authors helped write; then the White House is all over the place, with Trump and his cabinet and advisors contradicting one another daily, and no coherent plan in sight.
Second, we hand corporations and construction companies trillions--and to get Democratic and Left support, we bribe them with...wait for it...toll roads and privatized public services.
Third, are corporations picked on? Do they suffer? Yes indeedy, so let chop their tax rate 20 points, in exchange for...nothing. Unless you yet again embrace trickle-down economics, with all the enthusiasm of a cincussed baby duck who has yet again mistaken a RC Tonka toy for mom.
Fourth, have corporations stashed trillions overseas to the detriment of this country? Has capital yet again gone on strike? No probs, dude: offer them massive bribes by way of cheap repatriation, just as we've done aforetimes twice, with the result of...nothing.
Y'all are nuts.
First, Trump has a genius tax plan that the authors helped write; then the White House is all over the place, with Trump and his cabinet and advisors contradicting one another daily, and no coherent plan in sight.
Second, we hand corporations and construction companies trillions--and to get Democratic and Left support, we bribe them with...wait for it...toll roads and privatized public services.
Third, are corporations picked on? Do they suffer? Yes indeedy, so let chop their tax rate 20 points, in exchange for...nothing. Unless you yet again embrace trickle-down economics, with all the enthusiasm of a cincussed baby duck who has yet again mistaken a RC Tonka toy for mom.
Fourth, have corporations stashed trillions overseas to the detriment of this country? Has capital yet again gone on strike? No probs, dude: offer them massive bribes by way of cheap repatriation, just as we've done aforetimes twice, with the result of...nothing.
Y'all are nuts.
2
These hacks never quit. Basically their plan is huge cuts for businesses and toll roads and pollution for the rest of us. Well, I'm sure their paymasters, the Kochs, will be happy.
2
Well the stupid part of the keep it simple stupid is pretty accurate. Tell me again, please, in simple terms, how we cut taxes on the largest of the taxpayers and then increase spending on infrastructure, military etc... I know I'm not an economist but I do understand basic math. Also, the trope that we have the highest corporate tax rate @ 35% is just misleading. With all the loopholes and deductions available - for example the Trump dump of 900 million- "In 1995, according to documents published on Saturday by The New York Times, Mr. Trump claimed almost a billion dollars in operating losses that could be used to avoid future federal income taxation. The eye-popping figure would amount to almost 2 percent of all so-called net operating losses claimed by all American taxpayers that year."
These are the line items and loopholes that are killing us as a country. Any mention of closing those ? I would go for a power corporate tax rate if these , and other, loopholes were closed - fair is fair and people, whats happening now ain't fair- to us, the people.
These are the line items and loopholes that are killing us as a country. Any mention of closing those ? I would go for a power corporate tax rate if these , and other, loopholes were closed - fair is fair and people, whats happening now ain't fair- to us, the people.
3
What a great question, and what a terrible explanation.
May I take a shot?
Why are republicans so doing?
When the entire agenda of the republican party is to:(a) destroy something and someone else, and (b) restore something as close as possible to slavery, a theocracy, and a society that exists to enrich big business - it does rather corrupt the soul. When Mitch is your mover and shaker; you should call the whole thing off.
Wonder why republicans attract all the David Duke types in America, or celebrate laws favoring dirty air, water, and food.
Republicans want a tax cut for themselves (fellow republicans), subsidies and jobs programs for their for fellows (antebellum states who get army bases, farm subsidies, grants), and basically free money for themselves. But, that is not enough. They want to ensure their policies renders miserable the undesirables with fines, taxes, fees, and other punishment (see cities funded by fines meted to blacks by traffic cops). And women should need a permission of white male before doing anything; this is non-negotiable.
This is what Republicans want, regardless of what they espouse.
I can see why they are having some problem with bringing this about. They will have a similar problem with tort reform (you can sue anyone but a republican), healthcare reform (free healthcare only for republicans), infrastructure spending (only in the reliable south).
But thanks for the totally vacuous explanation.
Kalidan
May I take a shot?
Why are republicans so doing?
When the entire agenda of the republican party is to:(a) destroy something and someone else, and (b) restore something as close as possible to slavery, a theocracy, and a society that exists to enrich big business - it does rather corrupt the soul. When Mitch is your mover and shaker; you should call the whole thing off.
Wonder why republicans attract all the David Duke types in America, or celebrate laws favoring dirty air, water, and food.
Republicans want a tax cut for themselves (fellow republicans), subsidies and jobs programs for their for fellows (antebellum states who get army bases, farm subsidies, grants), and basically free money for themselves. But, that is not enough. They want to ensure their policies renders miserable the undesirables with fines, taxes, fees, and other punishment (see cities funded by fines meted to blacks by traffic cops). And women should need a permission of white male before doing anything; this is non-negotiable.
This is what Republicans want, regardless of what they espouse.
I can see why they are having some problem with bringing this about. They will have a similar problem with tort reform (you can sue anyone but a republican), healthcare reform (free healthcare only for republicans), infrastructure spending (only in the reliable south).
But thanks for the totally vacuous explanation.
Kalidan
5
Tax Fact 1: Businesses do not pay taxes. Only people pay taxes. The money a business submits to taxing jurisdictions, like all other business costs paid to suppliers, including employees (suppliers of labor), is included in the prices people pay for the goods and services they purchase. What percent of the price you pay for US made goods is for taxes and other costs not related to producing the product? You don't know because the cost is hidden in the price.
Tax Fact 2: If you want less of something, tax it more. The Payroll Tax is a labor tax. Do we really want less US based labor? The Payroll Tax collects over $1 trillion per year which is more than 3 times the amount collected from the corporate income tax. There are much more economically efficient ways to fund our senior social programs (Social Security and Medicare) then through an annual $1.1 trillion pay-as-you-go income redistribution Payroll Tax. For example: Invest a small amount, one-time, for each new child born and allow it to grow unmolested for 62, 66 or 70 years guaranteed by the full faith and credit of Fed to appreciate at the historic compound average nominal growth rate of 10.4%.
Tax Fact 2: If you want less of something, tax it more. The Payroll Tax is a labor tax. Do we really want less US based labor? The Payroll Tax collects over $1 trillion per year which is more than 3 times the amount collected from the corporate income tax. There are much more economically efficient ways to fund our senior social programs (Social Security and Medicare) then through an annual $1.1 trillion pay-as-you-go income redistribution Payroll Tax. For example: Invest a small amount, one-time, for each new child born and allow it to grow unmolested for 62, 66 or 70 years guaranteed by the full faith and credit of Fed to appreciate at the historic compound average nominal growth rate of 10.4%.
1
I laugh at your 10.4%
In looking at other nations with advanced economies (including most of Europe), we have a blueprint for tax reform: the VAT. Why not use it?
Tax reform is a policy area where there is actually broad agreement among economists across the ideological spectrum. But what the authors of this Op-Ed propose is on the fringe of the profession. It is an attempt to revive the discredited theory of trickle-down economics.
Tax reform is a policy area where there is actually broad agreement among economists across the ideological spectrum. But what the authors of this Op-Ed propose is on the fringe of the profession. It is an attempt to revive the discredited theory of trickle-down economics.
4
In rough, ballpark-estimate terms, U.S. real (inflation-adjusted) per-capita income has doubled over the past 4 decades. In other words, Americans have built an entire other America in that time. Unfortunately, that entire 2nd America we built is, in rough ballpark terms, owned by <1% of us (and the vast bulk of it by <0.01% of us). Most people are aware of "increasing inequality", but they don't really grasp this stark illustration of it. Look up the numbers yourself and tell me I'm wrong (by a significant margin).
The solution is very simple: eliminate the cap on the Social Security payroll tax, and extend it to all forms of income. If that provides more revenue than needed to rebuild infrastructure, expand Medicare to all and pay down the debt, then eliminate the bottom tax bracket and relieve below-median earners from having to pay income tax.
Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me you can't afford to pay 13% tax on your above=cap income. Better yet, look 50 million Americans getting by on <$50k/year in the eye and tell them what you can and can't afford.
The solution is very simple: eliminate the cap on the Social Security payroll tax, and extend it to all forms of income. If that provides more revenue than needed to rebuild infrastructure, expand Medicare to all and pay down the debt, then eliminate the bottom tax bracket and relieve below-median earners from having to pay income tax.
Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me you can't afford to pay 13% tax on your above=cap income. Better yet, look 50 million Americans getting by on <$50k/year in the eye and tell them what you can and can't afford.
4
I can use these 13% to pay for my kids' college. Stop lecturing other people on how they can spend their money.
1
When the economy is enjoying sustained growth and is unlikely to slow down significantly, tax cuts can create some moderate increase in activities, but those cuts must not create substantial deficits or they will make credit and capital more expensive. The only time that tax cuts have shown real improvements to the economy have been when the revenues collected become surpluses, which is rarely the case. Politicians have promised tax cuts and increased services since the start of the republic and while it gets votes for them, it never works out well for the economy.
The role that tax cuts play in any financial decisions tends to be marginal at best. The reason is that achieving profitability is the necessary first objective in any financial plan which is never determined by taxes alone. Labor costs, costs of materials, costs of energy, costs of capital, and customers eager to buy your products in greater amounts than previously are all far more important factors in profitability.
Unfortunately the authors of this piece are all people who never ran a successful business, all think that rich people make all the money that society has and everyone else are parasites, and have this strange idea that all they need to make money is to invest in the right businesses at the right times. The fact that consumers are also workers and when their share of the wealth decreases, the economy is going to languish in slow growth is beyond their conceptions.
The role that tax cuts play in any financial decisions tends to be marginal at best. The reason is that achieving profitability is the necessary first objective in any financial plan which is never determined by taxes alone. Labor costs, costs of materials, costs of energy, costs of capital, and customers eager to buy your products in greater amounts than previously are all far more important factors in profitability.
Unfortunately the authors of this piece are all people who never ran a successful business, all think that rich people make all the money that society has and everyone else are parasites, and have this strange idea that all they need to make money is to invest in the right businesses at the right times. The fact that consumers are also workers and when their share of the wealth decreases, the economy is going to languish in slow growth is beyond their conceptions.
2
As I write this, there are 955 readers' comments ahead of me more than amply discrediting this op-ed's writers and their self-discrediting trickle-down nostrums. I will offer no further blows to that (hopefully) dead horse. But I would like to give credit where it is due. Arthur (“Laffer-curve) Laffer et al has earned redemption in a well researched article published by his Laffer Center in 2011 entitled “The Economic Burden Caused by Tax Code Complexity”. In that article he amply demonstrates the enormous cost to taxpayers and the government exacted by the exquisite complexity of our tax code. The wealth that could be unleashed by simplification of the code beggar that of the remedies offered in today's recycled proposal. I would like to see Prof Laffer shed his co-author baggage and come back to us with a really sensible tax reform proposal that would forevermore dissociate Laffer from laughter.
5
These four individuals have been trying to shift the burden of funding government away from the investors of this country their whole lives and they have tried every rhetorical device of which they can partake to convince the people of this country that allowing investors to have more money to invest will make the economy grow faster for everyone's benefit, and nothing else. Laffer's ridiculous argument that cutting taxes increases revenues collected was bizarre when he proposed it and the consistency of increased deficits following every tax cutting scheme should have made all understand that he was mistaken. Forbes schemes to make a flat tax would clearly result in nearly all new wealth concentrate intp fewer and fewer private entities, and so guarantee that most people would soon find their aspirations for prosperity impossible, and permanently hobble economic growth in the U.S. These four people are fixed upon reducing taxes upon the wealthy and regulations upon their activities, in the deep faith that greed amongst the most wealthy is the key to all human progress.
3
Congressmen need corporate money to maintain their jobs. The also need to keep the tax loopholes short term so that the corporations come back every year to give them money to get re elected. Congressmen have too much incentive to continue the current system.
3
This is the usual tax reform proposal that rewards corporate "citizens" with reduced costs and gives the middle and working classes a promise that they'll be taken care of in the next go-round. Smoke and mirrors, just smoke and mirrors.
Why?
1. US Corporate marginal tax rates are already lower than those for individuals (35% v. 39.6%).
2. US income tax rates favor the large-scale investor instead of the skilled worker. According to my tax preparer, folks who work for their money pay higher effective rates than those with investment incomes.
3. Here's a sign of an overly complex system. Until I retired, filing my income taxes was fairly simple (Even if some of the record keeping was onerous.) Not so since I retired. It costs me more to pay taxes on a smaller income, and needs professional assistance.
Why?
1. US Corporate marginal tax rates are already lower than those for individuals (35% v. 39.6%).
2. US income tax rates favor the large-scale investor instead of the skilled worker. According to my tax preparer, folks who work for their money pay higher effective rates than those with investment incomes.
3. Here's a sign of an overly complex system. Until I retired, filing my income taxes was fairly simple (Even if some of the record keeping was onerous.) Not so since I retired. It costs me more to pay taxes on a smaller income, and needs professional assistance.
1
The authors' idea of tax reform is cut the rate EVEN further, which is the wrong approach. They still believe, or promote with a willful ignorance that tax-cut for the rich is best way to solve all economic issues.
No, that's the wrong approach. Base-broadening & lowering the marginal rates are the worst kind of tax-reform. That has caused inequality & misery for the unlucky since the Reagan tax-reform of 1986.
If the Reagan tax-cuts were to be kept at the 1981 level, inequality wouldn't have been this high. A top 50% rate is quite fair, 70% is not that important except during times of emergencies as in wars or other catastrophes. The 50% rate could have far less stringently applied, say on over top 0.1% or less incomes. Bernie Sanders wanted to apply that only on over $10 million, i.e., on over about 0.05% incomes. Reagan made it to about on over 1.5% of incomes.
But 1986 cut, which many liberal Democrats like Bill Bradley helped engineer was to a top rate of 28% on over in 2016 dollars of about $60K; whether you made $100K or $5 billion you paid just 28% on over your $60K in taxable incomes. Another rate of 15% on less than $60K in taxable incomes, which was a huge burden on low income-folks.
Payroll tax is regressive, so are sales taxes; bottom 20% pays 7 times more as a share of their incomes in sales taxes!
No, that's the wrong approach. Base-broadening & lowering the marginal rates are the worst kind of tax-reform. That has caused inequality & misery for the unlucky since the Reagan tax-reform of 1986.
If the Reagan tax-cuts were to be kept at the 1981 level, inequality wouldn't have been this high. A top 50% rate is quite fair, 70% is not that important except during times of emergencies as in wars or other catastrophes. The 50% rate could have far less stringently applied, say on over top 0.1% or less incomes. Bernie Sanders wanted to apply that only on over $10 million, i.e., on over about 0.05% incomes. Reagan made it to about on over 1.5% of incomes.
But 1986 cut, which many liberal Democrats like Bill Bradley helped engineer was to a top rate of 28% on over in 2016 dollars of about $60K; whether you made $100K or $5 billion you paid just 28% on over your $60K in taxable incomes. Another rate of 15% on less than $60K in taxable incomes, which was a huge burden on low income-folks.
Payroll tax is regressive, so are sales taxes; bottom 20% pays 7 times more as a share of their incomes in sales taxes!
1
This sounds like the same old same old Republican trickle down policies that do not work, have not worked and will not work.
2
Mr. Forbes, et al, if corporations are people as decided by the Citizens United case then tax corporations at the same rate as is applied to people. There is no clear proof that corporations provide more jobs when they keep more of their revenue under reduced tax rates. Typically corporations distribute much of their net gains to executives as bonuses or to shareholders as dividends. You will need to exhibit solid evidence of job gains directly caused by tax reductions before the public will consider such a move.
5
"A study by the Tax Foundation and Kevin A. Hassett, then at the American Enterprise Institute and now the chairman of President Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, found that middle-class wages rise when business taxes fall."
Gee, how surprising that such a nice, unbiased source of research came up with conclusions that support the interests of the corporate overlords. We might as well blindly accept the tobacco industry's research conclusions on the safety of cigarettes.
Gee, how surprising that such a nice, unbiased source of research came up with conclusions that support the interests of the corporate overlords. We might as well blindly accept the tobacco industry's research conclusions on the safety of cigarettes.
2
"And, if we are right that tax cuts will spur the economy, then the faster economic growth as a result of the bill will bring down the deficit."
BUT,... that has never happened. You are not right. Lower taxes generally further enrich the already rich. The problem is not that there is insufficient money to invest. Corporations are holding record amounts of cash and interest rates are near historic lows. Bringing cash back to the US is more likely to result in share buy backs and dividends, rather than investment.
This is ideologically driven BUNK.
BUT,... that has never happened. You are not right. Lower taxes generally further enrich the already rich. The problem is not that there is insufficient money to invest. Corporations are holding record amounts of cash and interest rates are near historic lows. Bringing cash back to the US is more likely to result in share buy backs and dividends, rather than investment.
This is ideologically driven BUNK.
This is, to quote a famous Republican, Voodoo Economics 2.0.
If you have to do a "study" to find out that middle income wages might rise if you give a massive tax cut to corporations, you have just proven that you are ignorant of history.
What these authors propose is giving large multinational corporations, financiers, and executives another hit. Cash is what they crave. They are addicts, asking working Americans to fund their habit once again.
If you have to do a "study" to find out that middle income wages might rise if you give a massive tax cut to corporations, you have just proven that you are ignorant of history.
What these authors propose is giving large multinational corporations, financiers, and executives another hit. Cash is what they crave. They are addicts, asking working Americans to fund their habit once again.
distortion of history. the reagan tax cut was of most benefit to the top 1% and started the shift of wealth to that class. read Kevin Phillips and others for the truth. Laffer is the master of voo-doo economics, aka "thr trickle down effect". it's more accurately described as the "trickle-up"!
2
"The best way to bring jobs back to America is to simply lower tax rates now while rolling back anti-jobs regulations, such as rules that inhibit American energy production."
Because when Blue Sky flooding becomes an everyday occurrence, no one can breathe the air and crops wither from relentless heat and lack of water, at least you'll have your job in obsolete fuel sources.
Because when Blue Sky flooding becomes an everyday occurrence, no one can breathe the air and crops wither from relentless heat and lack of water, at least you'll have your job in obsolete fuel sources.
3
The difference between conservatives and liberals is this: conservatives are sick and tired of paying for the poor and liberals are sick and tired of paying for the wealthy. It's the wealthy who write tax laws so we can all guess how this is going to turn out.
3
Considering the fact that liberals account for 2/3 of economic output in our country it would seem that "conservatives" have not yet recognized that most of them are poor and that liberals are covering the bills for both the poor and the wealthy.
The Committee to Unleash Prosperity. I don't know who is smiling more broadly- George Orwell or Marie Antoinette.
4
The very rich who are in dire need of more tax cuts are the ones who are blindly selfish and ignorant of the benefits they have received from being the beneficiaries of this nation. The Committee to Unleash Prosperity doesn't really care what happens to those who are not rich and intend all prosperity to land at the top, continuing the GOP's war on working people.
Me thinks the "conservatives" have severe cognitive dissonance!
On the one hand they want their taxes as low as possible but they want many of the things that taxes pay for. Like the largest military in the world. Like highways to move their goods around. Like courts to settle their disputes. Like police to protect their property.
On the one hand they want their taxes as low as possible but they want many of the things that taxes pay for. Like the largest military in the world. Like highways to move their goods around. Like courts to settle their disputes. Like police to protect their property.
The reappearance of Reaganomics, as advice for Trump and now as a risible op-ed, amply demonstrates Republicans' intellectual bankruptcy. Republicans have no new ideas, and nothing to offer 99.9% of Americans.
It even appears cutting taxes for the wealthy is the only idea Republicans have. When Paul Ryan was finally forced to produce a replacement for Obamacare (after his party did nothing but attack it for 7 years), he produced a tax cut that mainly benefited the wealthy (with a special handout to insurance company CEOs), funded by taking health care away from 24 million of the least wealthy Americans. (The claim that the bill tried to "fix the trillion-dollar health insurance market" is a lie worthy of a Trump tweet.)
And now Forbes, Laffer, and company claim tax cuts will not merely reduce the deficit, but will solve the problem of wage stagnation! A study from a conservative think tank is apparently such convincing proof that they felt no need to provide a citation. And of course, they insist tax cuts are "the best way to bring jobs back to America." Is there any problem that cutting taxes for the wealthy won't solve?
Of course, there's the little problem that the prosperity Reaganomics created went overwhelmingly to the wealthy, greatly increasing income inequality and leaving the majority of Americans behind. The rising tide lifted the yachts, but smashed the dinghies and rafts. Laffer and company would probably respond that the tide just needs to be higher.
It even appears cutting taxes for the wealthy is the only idea Republicans have. When Paul Ryan was finally forced to produce a replacement for Obamacare (after his party did nothing but attack it for 7 years), he produced a tax cut that mainly benefited the wealthy (with a special handout to insurance company CEOs), funded by taking health care away from 24 million of the least wealthy Americans. (The claim that the bill tried to "fix the trillion-dollar health insurance market" is a lie worthy of a Trump tweet.)
And now Forbes, Laffer, and company claim tax cuts will not merely reduce the deficit, but will solve the problem of wage stagnation! A study from a conservative think tank is apparently such convincing proof that they felt no need to provide a citation. And of course, they insist tax cuts are "the best way to bring jobs back to America." Is there any problem that cutting taxes for the wealthy won't solve?
Of course, there's the little problem that the prosperity Reaganomics created went overwhelmingly to the wealthy, greatly increasing income inequality and leaving the majority of Americans behind. The rising tide lifted the yachts, but smashed the dinghies and rafts. Laffer and company would probably respond that the tide just needs to be higher.
Democrats should not supply a single vote to this plan unless many thousands of business owners come out and state exactly how much this tax plan would save them and then exactly how much of those savings are going into worker raises. I suspect all that will happen is fatter corporate profits and continued degradation of employment conditions. The notion of a business only tax cut as a "middle class wage increase" must be one of the more Orwellian policy descriptions we've heard yet in this administration.
2
This article is nonsense. We do not need lower corporate taxes. Most corporations do not pay an effective 35% tax rate.
Trillions are not coming back to this country when they can be invested more profitably offshore.
The tax code is like the building code. It is a result of more than a century of experience with what works. Everybody wants lower taxes, but lower taxes do not pay for a professional, ethical government.
Privatizing public infrastructure is simply a formula for corruption, incompetence and mismanagement. It costs more to pay some profit-seeking investor than it does to pay a non-profit government.
Just as lower taxes for the rich will destroy the country, so too private ownership of government infrastructure introduces another layer of unnecessary cost that allows rich people to get fat on the public's property.
The fund to build infrastructure is the tax collected from the rich to fund public infrastructure. We are not going to make a gift of lower taxes to the rich, and then allow the rich to take the taxes they have saved to purchase public infrastructure to collect future profits from the tax paying public.
Reagan's voodoo economics never made sense and making a gift of public infrastructure to the rich makes even less sense.
Build for the public, not for the rich. Making the rich richer does not solve wage inequality.
Killing the EPA kills people with air pollution, putting China further ahead in renewable energy.
Trillions are not coming back to this country when they can be invested more profitably offshore.
The tax code is like the building code. It is a result of more than a century of experience with what works. Everybody wants lower taxes, but lower taxes do not pay for a professional, ethical government.
Privatizing public infrastructure is simply a formula for corruption, incompetence and mismanagement. It costs more to pay some profit-seeking investor than it does to pay a non-profit government.
Just as lower taxes for the rich will destroy the country, so too private ownership of government infrastructure introduces another layer of unnecessary cost that allows rich people to get fat on the public's property.
The fund to build infrastructure is the tax collected from the rich to fund public infrastructure. We are not going to make a gift of lower taxes to the rich, and then allow the rich to take the taxes they have saved to purchase public infrastructure to collect future profits from the tax paying public.
Reagan's voodoo economics never made sense and making a gift of public infrastructure to the rich makes even less sense.
Build for the public, not for the rich. Making the rich richer does not solve wage inequality.
Killing the EPA kills people with air pollution, putting China further ahead in renewable energy.
2
The Republican SOS tax plan is just code for a monster stimulus program, which they hated under Obama, imbedded in a windfall tax cut for the rich.
The same fiscal cocaine they have been peddling since St. Reagan.
This trio of snake oil salesmen do have chutzpah to cloak themselves behind Kennedy and the worn out claim that a trillion dollar donation to the 1% will benefit working folks.
For the Times to give them print space without an accompanying editorial is the mother of all cognitive dissonance.
The same fiscal cocaine they have been peddling since St. Reagan.
This trio of snake oil salesmen do have chutzpah to cloak themselves behind Kennedy and the worn out claim that a trillion dollar donation to the 1% will benefit working folks.
For the Times to give them print space without an accompanying editorial is the mother of all cognitive dissonance.
1
And shame on them for ever saying Kennedy's name. They should have choked on it.
We need an honest tax system with no or few deductions.It needs to be the SAME % tax for all incomes.Anything else is discriminatory and causes problems.Let the Democrats set the % tax rate.I'm guessing they won't make it very high,since their constituents won't let them.A flat % tax is progressive,since someone earning a low income gets more govt benefits than higher incomes.
Why did I read the article? To confirm what I knew would be in it. Why are these stale unsupportable ideas being promoted? Greed-Sad.
5
These 4 clowns have been responsible for selling some of the worst lies in history to a gullible American citizenry, including the lie that tax cuts are self-financing.
They are so scurrilous and discredited that one wonders why The New York Times saw fit to give them space for their drivel.
Why didn't you invite Grover Norquist along, too? That way, you could have dispensed with all of them at once and felt no further obligation to publish their nonsense.
They are so scurrilous and discredited that one wonders why The New York Times saw fit to give them space for their drivel.
Why didn't you invite Grover Norquist along, too? That way, you could have dispensed with all of them at once and felt no further obligation to publish their nonsense.
10
I remember when W took office and had a budget excess. So, we're taxing too much, he said, and must lower tax rates. Before he could do that, his administration started running a deficit. So, he said, we must lower tax rates to bring back more jobs and build the economy. IF that is true, why didn't we gain jobs? Why did the country enter a deep depression and shed jobs under this philosophy. But the most important question is WHY do the American people continue to believe this idiocy?
4
Business profits are currently at an all-time high, so why focus on business cuts? Where is the data that shows they are struggling to compete? The existing 35% rate cited is not what they actually pay with dozens of breaks not included in the real rates. If the top line rate is to be reduced, so should the breaks, otherwise how are these breaks to be paid for? You can't get something for nothing. The authors totally forgot the 800lb gorilla in the room - Trump's taxes. The public will not allow any kind of reform without first seeing Trumps own tax returns to see how any changess affect his bottom line.
4
Because...In every RINO there is a Democrat begging to be seen and heard.
I read these comments and hear a bunch of jealous, greedy children who demand that the success and innovation of others be taxed so those children can live the high life without working for it. How pathetic. Amerika has been changed into a socialist country, where a person has no true personal property of value. Regardless of what you pay, it is still leased from the state.
Taxes are not a means to an end, and should never be used as a weapon of control against the people.
Taxes are not a means to an end, and should never be used as a weapon of control against the people.
Hi, but, briefly: that's the dumbest thing I've heard in my life, and I live in California.
Do you drive on roads? Did your kids, or you, go to school? Do you get cholera regularly?
Then you're benefiting from socialism -- like we all are -- and now you're thinking you can pay less because you're willing to ignore the fact that taxes pay for good things.
Your achievements -- well-earned, I'm sure -- were possible due to infrastructure, institutions and ideas funded by Federal, State and Local Taxes, from vaccination to the internet, the interstate highway system to municipal water service.
We all stand on the shoulders of the people who came before us. The problem is that Right-wing idiots reject the idea that they had any help in their rise, preferring to think that they've pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps; too bad that those bootstraps are, usually, actually made up of the elements of the tax-supported liberal state.
If you really wanted to save Americans money, why not actually look at what we spend on the Military, 4,400 nuclear weapons and Intelligence? And how much of that money is being well-spent on, say, salaries for men and women in uniform vs. squandered easy money for aerospace contractors as part of paying for planes and bombs we do not, and will not ever, need?
I have one final question for all no-tax Republican/Libertarian/Norquist-ites: If no taxes is the key to a better world, why aren't Somalia and Syria the happiest places on earth?
Do you drive on roads? Did your kids, or you, go to school? Do you get cholera regularly?
Then you're benefiting from socialism -- like we all are -- and now you're thinking you can pay less because you're willing to ignore the fact that taxes pay for good things.
Your achievements -- well-earned, I'm sure -- were possible due to infrastructure, institutions and ideas funded by Federal, State and Local Taxes, from vaccination to the internet, the interstate highway system to municipal water service.
We all stand on the shoulders of the people who came before us. The problem is that Right-wing idiots reject the idea that they had any help in their rise, preferring to think that they've pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps; too bad that those bootstraps are, usually, actually made up of the elements of the tax-supported liberal state.
If you really wanted to save Americans money, why not actually look at what we spend on the Military, 4,400 nuclear weapons and Intelligence? And how much of that money is being well-spent on, say, salaries for men and women in uniform vs. squandered easy money for aerospace contractors as part of paying for planes and bombs we do not, and will not ever, need?
I have one final question for all no-tax Republican/Libertarian/Norquist-ites: If no taxes is the key to a better world, why aren't Somalia and Syria the happiest places on earth?
Authors are more like the "Committee to Unleash the One Percent on the Rest of Us." All improvements for the class once known as the middle class come by way of enriching the wealthiest among us. We've seen this movie.
4
The proposals in this article, while good especially for small businesses, beg 2 questions:
When did you see anything positive trickle down (big business always has your interests at heart) and
Who do you think will make up the revenue shortfall (you only get one guess).
When did you see anything positive trickle down (big business always has your interests at heart) and
Who do you think will make up the revenue shortfall (you only get one guess).
3
As of right now, there are 796 comments, almost all pointing out the inherent moral and financial bankruptcy of their proposal, and the obviousness of their give-the-rich-more. This has been been done at least three times in my lifetime, each time with disastrous consequences for the peasants and our economy. The rich became richer.
Fool me once...but three times leaves an historic paper trail. Nice try, charlatans, but the peasants are on to you.
Fool me once...but three times leaves an historic paper trail. Nice try, charlatans, but the peasants are on to you.
6
Same song. different verse. These yahoos are the laughing stock of actual economists. lower taxes and increase the deficit....call it a win. We saw this movie with the tax cuts of GW Bush.....and how that ended. Clueless does not cover this kind of ideological wishful thinking.
4
"Mr. Trump should demand that Congress send him a jobs bill this summer that he can sign into law on Aug. 13, 2017. That is the day President Reagan signed his historic tax cut in 1981 at his beloved Ranch del Cielo in Santa Barbara, Calif."
Here's an equally thoughtful comment. Since that is a Sunday, I suppose he would sign this "jobs bill" from the ninth fairway of one of his beloved golf courses. What is the obsession with meaningless symbolism over substance? How about a bill that stands on its own merits...
Wasn't the mad rush to repeal Obamacare scheduled for the anniversary of date that Obama signed it into law? That worked out really well...
Here's an equally thoughtful comment. Since that is a Sunday, I suppose he would sign this "jobs bill" from the ninth fairway of one of his beloved golf courses. What is the obsession with meaningless symbolism over substance? How about a bill that stands on its own merits...
Wasn't the mad rush to repeal Obamacare scheduled for the anniversary of date that Obama signed it into law? That worked out really well...
2
Four of the biggest fools in the business, whose every theory on taxes favors the rich and who have been wrong about almost everything.
3
That Republicans want to cut taxes is not new. Talking about tax cuts in the abstract misses the fact that we have created so many loopholes aimed at mostly the rich and/or larger corporations, which increases disparity in wealth. This is the real problem. Effective tax rate for the rich and large corporations are nowhere near the rate written in the code.
I'm all for a lower corporate tax rate, but that must be married to closing the crazy loopholes which allow GE (for example) to avoid most taxes altogether.
There is no free lunch. On that theme, why do we want to concede to deficit spending right now?? Corporate profits are strong, unemployment is low, wages are rising (albeit slowly). Tax reform should be focused on lowering the rate, simplifying the tax code, and repatriation of profits that were only offshore because of ill-advised loopholes to begin with.
That is truly Keeping It Simple, Stupid!
I'm all for a lower corporate tax rate, but that must be married to closing the crazy loopholes which allow GE (for example) to avoid most taxes altogether.
There is no free lunch. On that theme, why do we want to concede to deficit spending right now?? Corporate profits are strong, unemployment is low, wages are rising (albeit slowly). Tax reform should be focused on lowering the rate, simplifying the tax code, and repatriation of profits that were only offshore because of ill-advised loopholes to begin with.
That is truly Keeping It Simple, Stupid!
4
The telling point in this newest trickle down is the old "fix the federal corporate and small-business tax system." The kicker there is the implication that small businesses will benefit small business. In fact, the truly small businesses usually don't generate enough taxable income for the authors' plan to make an appreciable difference in their incomes taxes. As most commenters can see, this is just a plea for more corporate welfare.
2
They do not want to admit that their so-called President thinks he is not equal to the American people but rather thinks of himself as some kind of "boss" or owner of the country like the businesses he has, and does not have to be transparent about his finances or paying taxes. He and they need to realize they are employees of the people of the United States. Tax reform would be designed to benefit the upper 1% of Americans who have nearly all of the wealth and want even more which is in fact derelict to their responsibility to build a healthy nation!
2
The author cites three main reasons to revise the business tax code. 1) Cut the tax code to 15%. Why? Most companies pay nothing close to a 35% tax rate. Many companies with billions in profit pay no federal income tax. 2) Allow full expensing of investments in new equipment. If you're not willing to invest in your own business, why should American tax payers invest in your business? 3) Repatriation of oversee's profits. US companies are sitting on record amounts of cash. They can borrow at historically unprecedented rates. Is lack of cash keeping people from hiring more workers? We're approaching full employment - who are they going to hire - immigrants?
Pay your fair share, help reduce the deficit, and be thankful you live in America.
Pay your fair share, help reduce the deficit, and be thankful you live in America.
1
Does anyone in the real world trust this congress, a group of people who's jobs depends on campaign cash from investors and corporations, to do the right thing and rework the tax code to everyone's benefit? I know I don't. Until you get money out of politics the march to the end of democracy to a Turkey styled or China styled authoritarianism.
I actually had some hopes for a president Trump. It turns out he is an empty suit with an empty head.
I actually had some hopes for a president Trump. It turns out he is an empty suit with an empty head.
"First, President Trump and Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, should stop insisting on “revenue neutrality.”" It seems that Republicans are fiscal hawks only when a Democrat is in the White House.
What nonsense. Trickle down doesn't work, repatriating dollars doesn't work, trickle up doesn't work, minimum wage increases don't work, lowering 35% corporate tax rates aren't really what corporations pay, the rich get richer and are greedy, the poor 99% of Americans are victims of international business CEO's. None of it works according to commenters here, and yet we muddle along under 20 Trillion dollars of debt that no one seems to care about. Why not admit that our economy is so huge that no one fully understands it and, therefore, no one can fix it so everyone is happy. Nothing works except that it all works a little bit. Those who want socialism and those who want capitalism have co-created a two headed monster that devours itself as each head tries to take chunks out of the other. Raise taxes, lower taxes, give government more money, give it less money. Folks, people BOTH care about themselves AND care about others. No one knows the perfect balance for themselves, let alone for an entire nation. Once we admit EACH of us has both needs and stop pretending that the nation is divided into those who only care about others and those who care only about themselves, maybe we can come together and rationally discuss our circumstances.
Forty years later and you all still want us to keep drinking Arthur Laffer's napkin-inspired recipe for Economic Kool-Aid?
No thanks. I live in the one place in America where the Supply-side experiment has undoubtedly proven to be a boon for no one but the wealthy benefactors of Kansas politicians who forced this toxic concoction down our throats year after year in spite of his ongoing failure. It's nothing but a proverbial anchor around the necks of the children of this state.
Toto, we are not in Kansas anymore. At least not the one I grew up in and attended some of the best schools in the country. Business first. Children last. That's the new economic paradigm. Making America Great Again.
Which begs the question, "for whom?"
Making America Great Again
No thanks. I live in the one place in America where the Supply-side experiment has undoubtedly proven to be a boon for no one but the wealthy benefactors of Kansas politicians who forced this toxic concoction down our throats year after year in spite of his ongoing failure. It's nothing but a proverbial anchor around the necks of the children of this state.
Toto, we are not in Kansas anymore. At least not the one I grew up in and attended some of the best schools in the country. Business first. Children last. That's the new economic paradigm. Making America Great Again.
Which begs the question, "for whom?"
Making America Great Again
4
The way these folks keep grabbing at money the question comes to mind is "how much would make them satisfied?". Billions are not enough they want it ALL. The paltry amount left for the rest of us is too much, So the new tax law will take more from the less well off and give it to the 1%.
2
"I'm smart" for not paying taxes, DT Trump, October 2016. There in total is his regard for the rest of the country.
1
Training in economics teaches objective thinking, free of bias and ideology. Too bad the authors of this paper didn't implement their training in writing about the US corporate tax system. While the US may have among the highest of nominal corporate tax rates among industrial countries, businesses do not pay tax based on nominal rates. The effective tax rate considers deductions and other loopholes which lower the effective tax rate corporations pay on their taxable income. It's also useful to point out that under the current tax system, many of the largest, wealthiest corporations in the US pay no tax at all. Reform of the corporate tax rules is certainly warranted. But the focus should be on reducing deductions and loopholes that provide counterproductive incentives for certain businesses and that the playing field is leveled for businesses large and small. In particular the focus should be on loopholes that allow some of our wealthiest corporations to escape any tax at all. Focusing on nominal tax rates is a distraction from the real tax issues.
1
Everybody's in favor of simplifying the tax code until it's their deduction or exemption that is on the chopping block.
Getting rid of ALL deductions and exemptions would create a simple tax code; however, that's politically possible because we all want our deductions and exemptions.
As a result, U.S. tax reform has always been more of a matter of picking winners and losers--who gets to keep their deductions and exemptions and who doesn't--than actually simplifying the tax code.
Getting rid of ALL deductions and exemptions would create a simple tax code; however, that's politically possible because we all want our deductions and exemptions.
As a result, U.S. tax reform has always been more of a matter of picking winners and losers--who gets to keep their deductions and exemptions and who doesn't--than actually simplifying the tax code.
Sure, we could cut tax rates for everyone, but we can do that next year he says.
Two answers to the question.
1. Trump has no idea what he is doing.
2. The right-wing extremists in Congress and "thought leaders" like those who wrote this article don't really care about the economic benefits of tax "reform" they just want lower taxes. They want the government starved of funds so it can't function properly.
They follow the school of "Junk Economics" that uses economics as a propaganda tool to justify tax and spending changes that are harmful to the economy but very beneficial to the billionaire and ruling class.
1. Trump has no idea what he is doing.
2. The right-wing extremists in Congress and "thought leaders" like those who wrote this article don't really care about the economic benefits of tax "reform" they just want lower taxes. They want the government starved of funds so it can't function properly.
They follow the school of "Junk Economics" that uses economics as a propaganda tool to justify tax and spending changes that are harmful to the economy but very beneficial to the billionaire and ruling class.
Fortunately this group of right wing bandits is too extreme for even the Republican party.
1
"In the short term, the bill will add to the deficit. But President Trump’s tax bill, like those of Presidents Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy, should be a tax cut, and it should be sold to the American people as such." Brilliant use of a prime Republican sales tactic designed to fool the masses. I'm sure DT has already figured that one out.
1
Trickle down did not fail. It succeeded in making many more people very rich, and it is continuing to succeed today. The American Dream today has been corrupted to an aspiration to be one of those really rich folks someday. But it's akin to the average high school star basketball player expecting to be able to reach the NBA. It is not OK that "Inequality" is not part of Tax Reform discussions. About half of the people voting cast their vote for a Sander/Clinton agenda that had Inequality, Jobs for the lower classes, and Tax Reform benefits that "spread the wealth". Remember that phrase? That is what people want - Trump voters included. The rich are doing fine and will continue to do so. Do they really need to become richer? What about the 99%? Remember those days when we used to talk about such things? Tax Reform has been waiting patiently on the shelf during the Obama years. It likely will remain their awhile due to ineptitude and polarization. However, that is preferable to what Forbes and Co. are proposing.
Why are republicans making tax reform so hard? Because many of them have mistakenly started to believe the lies they've spent the last several decades selling - that lowering taxes on the wealthiest people, and that lowering taxes on the wealthiest corporations, will help the nation at large. If you want to know why tax reform is hard for republicans, you need only look at your own article - talking about lowering corporate taxes without any mention of the effective tax rate? Seriously?
This is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Now that republicans are in power they are beginning to realize how untenable their ideas are. Lowering taxes on the wealth will not help the poor, lowering an already low effective corporate tax rate will not help workers, and most alarmingly obvious of all, decreasing revenue will not help the deficit. The chickens are coming home to roost, and republicans are being caught with their pants down.
This is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Now that republicans are in power they are beginning to realize how untenable their ideas are. Lowering taxes on the wealth will not help the poor, lowering an already low effective corporate tax rate will not help workers, and most alarmingly obvious of all, decreasing revenue will not help the deficit. The chickens are coming home to roost, and republicans are being caught with their pants down.
1
Typical Republican approach, like everything done by this Administration, favor big business, forget individuals. It is all about short term corporate profits. Corporations already don't pay tax at 35% due to all their tax deductions. Those deductions not only won't go away but will be accelerated under this "Plan". Foreign cash will be repatriated only to increase already obscene Executive and Board compensation. There won't be increased investment in the US as long as labor costs less abroad. You cannot legislate morality and the Republican Party and their Corporate benefactors are morally bankrupt. Along with their President, they could not care less about the "forgotten" Americans. They cannot fathom any obligation to future generations. Makes you wonder if they have forgotten "you can't take it with you"!
I'd feel safer with some broader thinking at the table.
1
Trump has, apparently, generally done well under the current tax laws. He's bragged about how much he knows about the tax code. While he may see opportunities in reforming the tax code if he can do it his way, he may be content to let it remain as is. Especially if he can blame Democrats for the failure to enact reforms. Republicans may need tax reform more than Trump does and so may be more put out if nothing happens with it. Is this a storm brewing between Trump and the Republicans? Trump will make out well whatever happens, and he's fully prepared to take credit for any good that results and spread blame for anything bad that happens.
I've lost all faith that lowering corporate taxes will result in wage growth. Some years ago, we saw what happened when overseas money was brought back They used it for Executive salary increases and also for their shareholders. Now they want to repatriate again. This falls under the "fool me once, fool me twice" saying. As if we should believe them again.
Also, I think they should reform BOTH corporate and personal taxes at the same time. Otherwise, the Personal reform will get postponed, and eventually bogged down in "the Rich vs the non-rich" argument. It will be a tough slog as both sides fight to a draw, and maybe even abandon Person tax reform.
Also, I think they should reform BOTH corporate and personal taxes at the same time. Otherwise, the Personal reform will get postponed, and eventually bogged down in "the Rich vs the non-rich" argument. It will be a tough slog as both sides fight to a draw, and maybe even abandon Person tax reform.
President Reagan's beloved tax cut was signed when the U.S was in a recession. Is the U.S in a recession now? No. Is a tax cut needed now? No.
This proposal is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start, but it's just what one would expect from the trickle-down crowd. By the way, on what dates did President Reagan sign his eight-or-so tax increases? And how about that long period of prosperity during the "high-tax" Clinton years?
1
So they believe in trickle down economics, even though it has never worked. That 1981 tax cut of Reagan's? Led to increased deficits, which led to Reagan enacting tax increase legislation. What Reagan got right was to, reluctantly, broaden the tax base and eliminate loopholes for high income individuals. BBLR.
1
How about a deal? You get corporate tax cut, we get the end of Citizens United?
1
All I really needed to know about the substance of this article was to see who wrote it. I read it anyway.
My initial reaction was confirmed.
My initial reaction was confirmed.
1
So the authors have gone public because Trump isn't listening and doing crazy (ineffective) stuff? I'm shocked.
1
Republican / democrats = globalists for the most part. Their is your answer.
And really, who doesn't love a new toll road. And more divided expressways are just what we need, not frivolities like modern electricity powered rail and urban mass transit, right?
3
I wish I lived in the la la land of these authors. Tax cuts have never, that's never boys, led to prosperity for Americans beyond the 1%. Why doesn't Forbes et al. just be honest with the American people for once. During the Clinton years when the economy was humming, they paid higher taxes and got richer. If you take away money from the masses, they don't buy your garbage and the economy goes downward as it did after Reagan/Bush and then again under G.W. Bush. Reality, what a concept.
None of these authors have any credibility as far as I'm concerned. Their past "advise" has done little more than increase the national debt/deficits and help make America one of the least equal (income) countries among the western world. Nothing to applaud or emulate with this cast of characters.
The Tax Foundation isn't nonpartisan so their numbers should be suspect. Lowering the corporate rate to 20% would be a raise if all the loopholes were eliminated since the effective rate is 14%. So put your money where your mouth is. And did you really put corporations before the people and suggest that the individual payer should come after corporations?
And lastly, do you really think people are dumb enough to still buy into the Supply Side myth? Easy to see who that benefits.
And lastly, do you really think people are dumb enough to still buy into the Supply Side myth? Easy to see who that benefits.
Because they are not Republicans. They are Rinos. And they will be targeted along with Democrats next year.
As a fiscally conservative Democrat I could support Kudlow and Moore's position completely if they would have addressed cutting out all the industrial planning corporate welfare deductions. Let the markets determine price. Eliminate deductions for interest expense and put equity on equal footing with debt. We could have a flat 15% corporate tax rate that all corporations pay at 15% and eliminate distortions and governmental influence in industry.
18
Be careful what you wish for!
Clinton reduced capital gains to 20 percent and three years later the DOTCOM bubble burst.
Bush reduced them to 15 percent and three years later the housing bubble burst.
In both cases too much money chased too few assets, the herd mentality took over, then the markets were shorted and the bubbles burst.
Which is the natural way capitalism keeps asset values in check and aligned with their fundamentals.
What did Americans get?
A lot of pain, suffering and much bigger deficits.
Clinton reduced capital gains to 20 percent and three years later the DOTCOM bubble burst.
Bush reduced them to 15 percent and three years later the housing bubble burst.
In both cases too much money chased too few assets, the herd mentality took over, then the markets were shorted and the bubbles burst.
Which is the natural way capitalism keeps asset values in check and aligned with their fundamentals.
What did Americans get?
A lot of pain, suffering and much bigger deficits.
39
"In both cases too much money chased too few assets, the herd mentality took over, then the markets were shorted and the bubbles burst."
Maybe we should be looking to the Federal Reserve.
Maybe we should be looking to the Federal Reserve.
Any Forbes/Kudlow/Laffer plan is a loser from the get go.
Been there before. No corporation pays a real tax of 35%. Companies with over $14 billion stashed overseas refuse to pay their already due tax on sales of goods and services. The Forbes flat tax is a bad, old idea, but a good one for the wealthy. In the 1980s, under Reagan the Laffer curve predicted oodles of new jobs with lower corporate tax rates. Reality, companies used the money for mergers, acquisitions, and dividends. The middle class continued to see their real incomes slide.
A progressive tax rate for corporations and individuals, a minimum tax for all, the abolition of special exemptions, and a fully staffed and funded IRS can best assure a fairer tax code.
GOP ideologues go to the back of the line.
Been there before. No corporation pays a real tax of 35%. Companies with over $14 billion stashed overseas refuse to pay their already due tax on sales of goods and services. The Forbes flat tax is a bad, old idea, but a good one for the wealthy. In the 1980s, under Reagan the Laffer curve predicted oodles of new jobs with lower corporate tax rates. Reality, companies used the money for mergers, acquisitions, and dividends. The middle class continued to see their real incomes slide.
A progressive tax rate for corporations and individuals, a minimum tax for all, the abolition of special exemptions, and a fully staffed and funded IRS can best assure a fairer tax code.
GOP ideologues go to the back of the line.
81
Ludicrous and scary, the 4 writers having no concern at for economics or for the well-being of ordinary people. Really scary stuff.
2
Trump wasted the entire transition period ruminating on twitter on various non consequential subjects. He just didn't seem to think planning policy was something to worry about. Nor did he think much of putting qualified people in his administration to come up with a coherent policy. He is at the mercy of the Freedom Caucus, which actually helped many people keep their health insurance coverage, through the ACA. due to the serendipitous repeal fiasco. The fact that Trump will not release his tax returns has irked some Rs and they demand that he release his returns or they will no move on tax reform.
1
I am astounded that the Times would give column inches to these charlatans. Their ideas have been wrecking the federal budget for decades, and still they have a platform! This is irresponsible, these people are economic flat-earthers.
As with most famous authors, they get published no matter what kind of nonsense they produce. Charles Murray and The Bell Curve is exhibit A. That man couldn't pass the AP stat exam.
These quack economists are recycling their defunct economic theories, completely divorced from reality. The only thing amazing about, mostly nonsensical, opinions is that the NYT provided space for their trash.
this tax plan has huge holes in them. First, allowing companies to expense immediately all capital assets will create a huge hole for those companies who will try to cut down on their tax bill by buying assets in the fourth quarter of their fiscal year. second, depending on the tax rate, we can allow companies to repatriot money but they need to be instructed w how they spend it. Not in the sense of investments but more towards not paying bonuses and so much stock buy back. we repatriated money back in 2004 for a 10% tax rate and and around 92% of the money went towards stock buy backs and executives bonuses. the jobs that were promised were not brought to fruition. there are ways to make tax law smaller for sure, but following the methods that trump was told wont work.
Steve Forbes, a man with the money to hire his own Larry, Curly and Moe.
A growing and prosperous economy will only enrich the Trumps because people will spend more money on their hotels, golf courses and casinos not to mention Ivanka's line of jewelry and clothing
Therefore, the Democrats must do all they can to keep this economy stagnant.
Therefore, the Democrats must do all they can to keep this economy stagnant.
1
The Four Horsemen with a prescription for more snake oil that does not work.
Double down. It will kick in and eventually kill the patient!
Double down. It will kick in and eventually kill the patient!
3
As soon saw I saw the name Steve Forbes I knew the article would be about the poor American businessman. PAY your share Steve and quit trying to rip off the middle class.
The very fact that they advised the buffoon we have in the White House says it all. The oligarchs leading the oligarchs.
If Republicans want tax reform, they should have elected someone who is evil AND competent. In Trump, they only got evil...
Toll Roads. These writers have no use for any public works or projects that enhance the public good.
I'll do you one better. Let us sell sections of the Interstates (1 mile or more) to private owners.
I would love to have a 1 mile section of I-95 where I could throw up a toll booth and charge a $1 a car load to travel through.
Or how about buying an Exit so that no one can leave the interstate without paying an exit fee.
However, I would settle for just making the streets near these writers home Toll Roads.
I'll do you one better. Let us sell sections of the Interstates (1 mile or more) to private owners.
I would love to have a 1 mile section of I-95 where I could throw up a toll booth and charge a $1 a car load to travel through.
Or how about buying an Exit so that no one can leave the interstate without paying an exit fee.
However, I would settle for just making the streets near these writers home Toll Roads.
Memo to the Times editorial board: Please take a moment to reacquaint yourselves with the famous motto that graces the front page of your newspaper every day. You know, the one that says "All the news that's fit to print." This lame paean to trickle-down economics by a group of longtime GOP hacks and blowhards does not come close to meeting that standard.
I can only assume this is satire, right? These days it's so difficult to tell. I suppose the authors looked at who was in the White House and figured, if one con man can make it, why not us as well?
That this drivel passes for economic analysis, in the same newspaper where Paul Krugman, someone who actually KNOWS things about economies, boggles the mind. "smdh", as the kids say.
That this drivel passes for economic analysis, in the same newspaper where Paul Krugman, someone who actually KNOWS things about economies, boggles the mind. "smdh", as the kids say.
I love this story....the gang that gave us 2008, the second biggest meltdown in our country's eco. history.
First, Forbes, Kudlow, Laffer and Moore, I and the country am still waiting for an apology from you guys for nearly ruining this country in 2008 with your neo con eco views.
You start off with the big lie....ie...we have the biggest corp. tax rate in the world. Maybe we do in theory but almost no corps pay it. It more like in the teens and the reason corps. move out of this country is because THEY DONT WANT TO PAY ANY TAXES.
Many big corps like GE in 2008 don't pay any taxes and got a 10 billion dollar rebate from Uncle Sam.
For intelligent people like you guys, it is mind boggling how you do not learn from history.
First, Forbes, Kudlow, Laffer and Moore, I and the country am still waiting for an apology from you guys for nearly ruining this country in 2008 with your neo con eco views.
You start off with the big lie....ie...we have the biggest corp. tax rate in the world. Maybe we do in theory but almost no corps pay it. It more like in the teens and the reason corps. move out of this country is because THEY DONT WANT TO PAY ANY TAXES.
Many big corps like GE in 2008 don't pay any taxes and got a 10 billion dollar rebate from Uncle Sam.
For intelligent people like you guys, it is mind boggling how you do not learn from history.
3
Zombie ideas from zombie advisors. Bad ideas never die in the GOP.
1
Come up with a tax plan that convinces the Pres to bring back the manufacturing of his ties and go with that.
Whenever I see Arthur Laffer's name, I think of the mess in Kansas where his grand trickle down tax experiment has been failing miserably.
2
The moment I read "energy drilling" I gave up on these advisors. Not a word about
Laffer? What's next, SDI and firing the air traffic controllers? Republicans are stuck in their backward ideology. Give us a break.....!
Why give space in the NYT to these thieves? Don’t they have enough? These people are what is wrong with America. This is 2017, not 1897!
4
I am really disappointed in the New York Times for pandering to these kinds of opinions. First you hire a known climate denier as an Opinion columnist, then you publish this drivel on tax reform from a bunch of people who want to rob middle and working class people, seniors, and children in order to increase the profits of large banks and corporations that are already obscenely profitable. This is drivel and the New York Times is abnegating its responsibility by publishing this garbage. At this point, the Wall Street Journal seems to have more integrity than the Times. I am thoroughly disgusted.
Laffer - the guy whose theories helped kill Kansas.
4
Amazing that such dishonest schleps as these could be taken seriously by anyone. The United States' 35% highest corporate tax rate? Sure, if you don't include all of the deductions and loopholes, looking only at the statutory rate and not the effective rate.
Why is the NY Times printing such drivel? It's not like they haven't been shown to be incompetent and dishonest in the past.
Why is the NY Times printing such drivel? It's not like they haven't been shown to be incompetent and dishonest in the past.
2
Spending taxpayer monies so that corporations can set up toll roads??? That's what Republicans did to the internet ... no thanks Republicans.
2
This piece contains misleading information, skewed facts and glaring omissions. Why does the NY Times give them a forum? I understand their trying to present different sides to a story, but one that has misleading information should be tossed in the trash. The online comments help set the record straight but what about those who read it in print.
Our country is in enough trouble because of misleading information; the NY Times shouldn't be perpetuating it.
Our country is in enough trouble because of misleading information; the NY Times shouldn't be perpetuating it.
1
Any vision for tax reform that these four oligarch apologists recommend is merely a sly way for rich people to improve their ability to skim money from middle-class chumps who believe their baloney.
It's wickedly disappointing that an institution with the reach, resources, and credibility of the NYT published this incoherent nonsense from four of the least competent, credible, and informed idolators of the "free market" imaginable. Here is an advertisement for supply side snake oil. I hope the writers paid the going rates for ads on the opinion pages.
1
You folks do realize that even though the maximum corpotate tax rate is 35% many of the largest corporations pay NO federal income taxes, and most pay well under 20%. Just be honest, in your perfect world the all taxes would come only from indidual incomes from wages and salaries. You know, from the "taker" people and not from the "maker" people like you. All hail our benevolent corporate overlords.
The 1980's are calling. Is this Laffer guy back again with his "trickle down" fairy tale?! Income inequality + huge deficits resulted last time this Americans fell for this. Good luck trying to sell that again.
The cluelessness of these authors is astounding. Really, cut corporate taxes from 35% to 15%, and then on top add a huge new deduction for capital purchases?? No mention of the cleaning up the endless list of corporate special interest deductions? Forbes well knows that the actual corporate rate is way lower, actually close to zero for many of Americas most profitable companies - like Apple.
This "plan" is the worst of all worlds - doing nothing to help ordinary Americans tax burden, creating a huge deficit, and leaving all the special corporate tax deductions in place while adding new ones.
Exhibit #1 for old school country club Republicanism - "cutting my taxes will fix everything for you". ROTFL!
The cluelessness of these authors is astounding. Really, cut corporate taxes from 35% to 15%, and then on top add a huge new deduction for capital purchases?? No mention of the cleaning up the endless list of corporate special interest deductions? Forbes well knows that the actual corporate rate is way lower, actually close to zero for many of Americas most profitable companies - like Apple.
This "plan" is the worst of all worlds - doing nothing to help ordinary Americans tax burden, creating a huge deficit, and leaving all the special corporate tax deductions in place while adding new ones.
Exhibit #1 for old school country club Republicanism - "cutting my taxes will fix everything for you". ROTFL!
1
GOP " ideas " on Tax Reform: see Kansas. PEROID.
1
Congress NEVER relinquish ANY CONTROL after the american Citizens have allowd Congress to STEAL these powers.
WONT
repeal the ACA
remoeve from sched 1 and de criminalize marijuana
pass meaningful regulation removal/control
meaningful tax reform
fix the ponzi SS , medicare, medicaid
fix INSOLVENT levels of debt
........
Congress TAKES POWER , it does not relinquish it
WONT
repeal the ACA
remoeve from sched 1 and de criminalize marijuana
pass meaningful regulation removal/control
meaningful tax reform
fix the ponzi SS , medicare, medicaid
fix INSOLVENT levels of debt
........
Congress TAKES POWER , it does not relinquish it
The Democrat's in congress are not going to act on a tax bill until
Trump releases his taxes.
Trump releases his taxes.
OK, boys, let's start with this gem : "A study by the Tax Foundation and Kevin A. Hassett, then at the American Enterprise Institute..."
I think you need to stop citing your own team all the time to support ideas that, in the real world, have been widely and steadily discredited.
Your penchant for claiming vindication based upon unrelated circumstance is troubling as well.
If what you want to say is that you think business owners and investors are just the best people ever, and we should go far out of our way to give them special gifts and keep them very happy then, fine, just say that for once.
All this pretend science economic mumbo-jumbo gives people the impression that you're accomplishing something, that the country is headed somewhere, and that is a dangerous thing. It keeps us from addressing real issues and real needs in ways that could actually produce positive results for someone other than you.
As a long and painful slide toward the pit of economic third world-ism has demonstrated, your ideas simply to do not work.
As repeated rescues at the hands of various Democratic administrations (ooh, that has to be embarrassing) make clear, their ideas work better.
Last, though most important, your proclivity to hold tight to old ideas, clench your teeth and watch, oh, Ford and GM go under for the sake of your misbegotten theories, makes clear you still, as ever, fail to connect your data with the lives of Americans at work. Or that you simply don't care.
I think you need to stop citing your own team all the time to support ideas that, in the real world, have been widely and steadily discredited.
Your penchant for claiming vindication based upon unrelated circumstance is troubling as well.
If what you want to say is that you think business owners and investors are just the best people ever, and we should go far out of our way to give them special gifts and keep them very happy then, fine, just say that for once.
All this pretend science economic mumbo-jumbo gives people the impression that you're accomplishing something, that the country is headed somewhere, and that is a dangerous thing. It keeps us from addressing real issues and real needs in ways that could actually produce positive results for someone other than you.
As a long and painful slide toward the pit of economic third world-ism has demonstrated, your ideas simply to do not work.
As repeated rescues at the hands of various Democratic administrations (ooh, that has to be embarrassing) make clear, their ideas work better.
Last, though most important, your proclivity to hold tight to old ideas, clench your teeth and watch, oh, Ford and GM go under for the sake of your misbegotten theories, makes clear you still, as ever, fail to connect your data with the lives of Americans at work. Or that you simply don't care.
The only thing more 80's than this op/ed would have been reprinting one of Patrick Bateman's pre-murder speeches on Huey Lewis in "American Psycho"
This is the gang that can't shoot straight. Only in conservative circles can you be wrong time and again and still have credibility over major economic policy. Supply-side economics has no basis in economic research and has failed spectacularly since the days of Ronald Reagan. The state of Kansas is the latest example of supply-side folly. Gov. Brownback cut taxes for a half-million wealthy farmers and businesses, promising a gusher of jobs. Not only did they not materialize, the lost revenue blew a hole in the budget and is jeopardizing the quality of a once-proud public education system. The governor was forced to plead with his legislature for a tax increase, and in the last election hard-line conservatives lost seats in the legislature. Still, this voodoo, as the first President Bush aptly called it, has a grip on the American psyche. It's time that the NY Times stopped practicing false equivalence in this regard and stopped giving these guys credibility.
116
"Only in conservative circles can you be wrong time and again and still have credibility over major economic policy."
Dave, that's because it's ideology, with a heaping helping of self-interest (as all four co-authors would no doubt economically benefit from their proposal), disguised as major economic policy.
Actually, check that. On second thought, it's self-interest, disguised as ideology, further disguised as major economic policy.
Dave, that's because it's ideology, with a heaping helping of self-interest (as all four co-authors would no doubt economically benefit from their proposal), disguised as major economic policy.
Actually, check that. On second thought, it's self-interest, disguised as ideology, further disguised as major economic policy.
" Gov. Brownback cut taxes for a half-million wealthy farmers and businesses, promising a gusher of jobs. Not only did they not materialize, the lost revenue blew a hole in the budget and is jeopardizing the quality of a once-proud public education system."
That's because neither the governor nor the legislature reduced spending.
That's because neither the governor nor the legislature reduced spending.
How did this his group figure out how get this to the Times, they have never been correct about any economic matter. They should be ashamed to show there faces in any kind decent society. They continue to have a voice as the paid clowns for the wealthy. Their family must be very proud. The Laffer curve is a perfect homonym.
2
"We should emphasize that business tax relief is not a sellout to corporations but a boon for middle-class workers."
Oh, sure. That's rich coming from these four shills for the ruling class. How long are decent hardworking middle class voters going to keep buying these horse feathers?
Joseph Heller's novel "Good as Gold" features a title character, Bruce Gold, who looks at politics with a jaundiced eye. With apologies to Mr. Heller, Gold would have read this article in the New York Times and come away with...
"Gold knew that the tax proposal would be a sellout to corporations at the expense of the middle class when he read... "We should emphasize that business tax relief is not a sellout to corporations but a boon for middle-class workers."
Oh, sure. That's rich coming from these four shills for the ruling class. How long are decent hardworking middle class voters going to keep buying these horse feathers?
Joseph Heller's novel "Good as Gold" features a title character, Bruce Gold, who looks at politics with a jaundiced eye. With apologies to Mr. Heller, Gold would have read this article in the New York Times and come away with...
"Gold knew that the tax proposal would be a sellout to corporations at the expense of the middle class when he read... "We should emphasize that business tax relief is not a sellout to corporations but a boon for middle-class workers."
2
"In the aftermath of the health care blowup, President Trump and the Republicans need a legislative victory."
Clearly, it's long past time for Cosmic Donald to stop the pretense, to raise his hands above a selected, adoring crowd, say again, "I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN SAVE YOU." and...expose the verifying stigmata.
Nothing but that so far unrevealed "fact" sufficiently explains the mumbling obedience of Mike Pence, for example. Mike, what "Word" is Trump a Man of? Say no more. Say no more...
Clearly, it's long past time for Cosmic Donald to stop the pretense, to raise his hands above a selected, adoring crowd, say again, "I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN SAVE YOU." and...expose the verifying stigmata.
Nothing but that so far unrevealed "fact" sufficiently explains the mumbling obedience of Mike Pence, for example. Mike, what "Word" is Trump a Man of? Say no more. Say no more...
Whoa, slow down there pardner. These are republican law makers yer talkin to, an they don take to logic and stuff. They wanna know how to get more from unemployed people and get themselves (the thousandaires and millionaires) and the companies that gave em money to get more money - ah - more money...
1
I read this piece without seeing who the authors were. By the middle of it, I found myself thinking that this sounds like the old Laffer Curve nonsense. Imagine my (lack of) surprise when I got to the bottom and saw who the perpetrators were. Repeating nonsense over decades does not give it more gravitas or credence. These 4 hacks, who have an almost unfathomable record of being wrong, simply rehash 30+ year old nonsense. It was a load of crap in the 1980s and it has gained nothing but wrinkles over the decades since.
2
Anyone who who takes this group seriously exemplifies what is wrong with Republican Party. It has evolved into a political versions of imitation Crackerjacks..
A relatively smalll box, an ancient recipe, cloying way of making popcorn taste better laced with nuts and a worthless small toy that delights sthe Four year olds of the world.
Taking Larry Kudlow seriously is another Robles with his loopy presence at being a heavy hitter when really he's a flyweight melting down onto Wall Street begging for attention.
Steve Forbes the guy who inherited His dad's money and media group - not to mention claiming the coveted "Silver Owl Award" for economic thinking - although it was a gag award for a group of economic crackpots.
Deeper and deeper.
A relatively smalll box, an ancient recipe, cloying way of making popcorn taste better laced with nuts and a worthless small toy that delights sthe Four year olds of the world.
Taking Larry Kudlow seriously is another Robles with his loopy presence at being a heavy hitter when really he's a flyweight melting down onto Wall Street begging for attention.
Steve Forbes the guy who inherited His dad's money and media group - not to mention claiming the coveted "Silver Owl Award" for economic thinking - although it was a gag award for a group of economic crackpots.
Deeper and deeper.
These four guys' tax proposals are nothing but a hoot and a holler. We tried their schemes of tax cuts for the wealthy while stiffing the middle class during 8 years of the George W. administration. How'd that work out? Why don't we try something different: tax cuts for the middle class and higher taxes on the wealthy.
2
What a murderers row of the Regressive Tax Club. No talk of removing loopholes, so the lower Corporate Tax rate will be actually be REALLY low, and impact revenues negatively - well beyond any dream of repatriation revenue that could fund ANY Infrastructure or other programs benefitting the 90%.
Tolls for roads / damns / bridges for what has always been a governmental responsibility is incredibly regressive. To these people, government is only there to serve business and corporate interests. Oh, and deficits are OK for their give-aways, but not programs for the rest of us. Can these people please read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution!
Tolls for roads / damns / bridges for what has always been a governmental responsibility is incredibly regressive. To these people, government is only there to serve business and corporate interests. Oh, and deficits are OK for their give-aways, but not programs for the rest of us. Can these people please read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution!
The .01% have it made so long as the country in which they operate remains somewhat socially and civilly stable, and maybe the taxes they pay helps maintain stability.
2
Patching the tax code is like fixing obamacare, it's just more unconstitutional destruction. Most of what the government taxes us for is to pay for programs the federal government was never meant to have the power to fund. Funding housing, funding education, funding health care, funding state/county/city roads, funding peoples personal solar stations, funding business, funding charities. Social/economic engineering is probably 4/5 of the tax code, and the founders clearly never intended for the federal government to fund such things. If the states through the people of those states wish to fund such things they have every constitutional power to do so with their own money. That would immediate negate the need for an incredible amount of federal taxation.
The biggest problems there are really SSI and Medicare, the people who paid trillions into those systems are going to expect to get that funding back in some way, and their trillions of dollars have been borrowed. Essentially we paid trillions of dollars into a 'retirement fund' and then borrowed our own money and spent it on ourselves, and now we expect the government to take that money from this generation to pay back the loan so we can have also receive benefits, but you can't do that without this generation then expecting benefits too. While most federal spending is unconstitutional, SSi and Medicare are the kind of schemes that people go to prison for.
The biggest problems there are really SSI and Medicare, the people who paid trillions into those systems are going to expect to get that funding back in some way, and their trillions of dollars have been borrowed. Essentially we paid trillions of dollars into a 'retirement fund' and then borrowed our own money and spent it on ourselves, and now we expect the government to take that money from this generation to pay back the loan so we can have also receive benefits, but you can't do that without this generation then expecting benefits too. While most federal spending is unconstitutional, SSi and Medicare are the kind of schemes that people go to prison for.
It continues to amuse me when conservative proponents of tax cuts refer to JFK. Almost invariably they omit the numbers of the mother of all tax cuts. If we take the actions of 1961 and 1963 together, JFK cut the individual rates from a 20% to 91% range to one of 14% to 65%, the corporate rate was cut from 52% to 47%. Compare that with the ACTUAL numbers that Messrs. Forbes, Kudlow, Laffer, and Moore want to cut further: 10% to 39.6% and 35%, respectively.
I am a complete layperson when it comes to finances but even I can grasp that tax cuts at different levels of taxation can't possibly have the same effect. I suspect that the gentlemen prefer to evade the discussion and therefore never talk about THOSE numbers.
I am a complete layperson when it comes to finances but even I can grasp that tax cuts at different levels of taxation can't possibly have the same effect. I suspect that the gentlemen prefer to evade the discussion and therefore never talk about THOSE numbers.
1
One basic problem is that we now know for a certainty that Trump never, ever does what he should do. Also as the rule of law disappears into the ether why would you want to move capital back into the USA. Business needs stability to thrive, and we seem to be going full steam ahead in the other direction.
So, in summary, the Republicans should:
1.) Cut the base corporate tax rate;
2.) Let corporations hide from more of these taxes by making their usual purchases;
3.) Give up the game on taxing profits hidden overseas, awaiting just such a surrender;
4.) Give the crumbs of this defeat to corporations willing to pretend to be newly interested in infrastructure projects -- but only those they can profit from;
5.) Pay again for the same projects by letting the investors charge the taxpayers a second time through tolls and other user fees;
6.) But, whatever we do, we must not impose a carbon tax, which would recoup some of these losses to the budget and incentivize innovative investment and cleaner production methods.
1.) Cut the base corporate tax rate;
2.) Let corporations hide from more of these taxes by making their usual purchases;
3.) Give up the game on taxing profits hidden overseas, awaiting just such a surrender;
4.) Give the crumbs of this defeat to corporations willing to pretend to be newly interested in infrastructure projects -- but only those they can profit from;
5.) Pay again for the same projects by letting the investors charge the taxpayers a second time through tolls and other user fees;
6.) But, whatever we do, we must not impose a carbon tax, which would recoup some of these losses to the budget and incentivize innovative investment and cleaner production methods.
4
Our greatest "period of prosperity" was the 1950's and 1960's, when the top marginal income tax started out over 90 percent and was cut to 70 percent under Kennedy. We built the interstate highway system and had tuition-free public universities, for example. Our economic problem for the past 40 years has been stagnant wages -- resulting from off-shoring and automation/computerization -- and resultant lower consumer demand. We should increase taxes on the top one percent and institute a sharp boost in the Earned Income Tax Credit to relieve widespread poverty and stimulate the economy, thus benefiting everyone.
3
Thank you for publishing this op ed piece or I may not read about their views. This is what Reagan said, what Bush said....but the rich kept the profits to themselves and didn't create more jobs nor did they invest enough in infrastructure. If what this group wants were to happen where will the government get the funds for social welfare and infrastructure maintenance let alone new infrast. investment? It is misguided to think that everyone has equal access to resources like education, jobs or health care. Some people have the benefit of inheritances, while others are born w disadvantages such as race or national origin. The group advised Reagan and Bush and what happened? The rich just kept the wealth to themselves. It was Clinton who did a lot more that led to growth. NAFTA helped rather than hurt us....
I am amazed that these allegedly conservative writers are not linking tax reforms with spending reforms. Yes, corporate tax rates need to come down, but we don't need to give these same corporations even more tax breaks or subsidies. In fact, all subsidies to businesses need to be eliminated. We could start with the sugar industry; there is no need to impose import quotas and government guarantees to purchase any unsold sugar at inflated prices. There are probably many more examples of this type of government largesse.
But any tax cuts have to be combined with reductions in spending. We simply have bloated government, and it only gets bigger. Trump needs to tell every cabinet Secretary and independent agency, commission or agency that their budgets are going to be cut, and they need to start looking where to save the taxpayers' money. Until spending is reduced, tax reform alone will not improve our economy.
But any tax cuts have to be combined with reductions in spending. We simply have bloated government, and it only gets bigger. Trump needs to tell every cabinet Secretary and independent agency, commission or agency that their budgets are going to be cut, and they need to start looking where to save the taxpayers' money. Until spending is reduced, tax reform alone will not improve our economy.
1
Always interesting to hear from Four Henchmen of the American Apocalypse and get the latest take on their pseudo-intellectual recipe for national disaster. It is a recipe for strangling our democracy by destroying the bedrock of infrastructure and public institutions. It is slow-roll anarchism that feeds on the electorate's need for simplicity.
Younger people must come to understand:
1. every dollar of federal debt is a dollar of tax on future generations.
2. nominal tax rates and effective tax rates are different.
3. increasing corporate power will not protect our air and water, improve roads and bridges, create meaningful jobs, or enhance individual liberties in sustainable form.
And so on.
The 1950s were far from perfect. But the results of high marginal tax rates for individuals, higher effective tax rates for corporations, and a judicial system and unions constraining the corporate "factions" were no accident.
We are thirty years into the grand experiment with lower individual marginal tax rates and less progressivity in our tax system. The results of this experiment are clear. It is past time to restore progressivity and constrain avarice.
Younger people must come to understand:
1. every dollar of federal debt is a dollar of tax on future generations.
2. nominal tax rates and effective tax rates are different.
3. increasing corporate power will not protect our air and water, improve roads and bridges, create meaningful jobs, or enhance individual liberties in sustainable form.
And so on.
The 1950s were far from perfect. But the results of high marginal tax rates for individuals, higher effective tax rates for corporations, and a judicial system and unions constraining the corporate "factions" were no accident.
We are thirty years into the grand experiment with lower individual marginal tax rates and less progressivity in our tax system. The results of this experiment are clear. It is past time to restore progressivity and constrain avarice.
3
Forbes, Kudlow, Laffer, and Moore are charter members of the Republican Party's Alternative Facts Hall of Fame. Study after study shows that American corporations do not pay 35% in income tax and are not laboring under financial handicaps in comparison to other national tax policies. Take for example the lede in a study by GAO:
"In each year from 2006 to 2012, at least two-thirds of all active corporations had no federal income tax liability. Larger corporations were more likely to owe tax. Among large corporations (generally those with at least $10 million in assets) less than half—42.3 percent—paid no federal income tax in 2012. Of those large corporations whose financial statements reported a profit, 19.5 percent paid no federal income tax that year..."
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-363
There is overwhelming evidence contradicting their suggestion that American corporations are actually taxed at a rate of 35%. Why do these rich tax scheme peddlers think they can continue to spew this nonsense and get away with it?
"In each year from 2006 to 2012, at least two-thirds of all active corporations had no federal income tax liability. Larger corporations were more likely to owe tax. Among large corporations (generally those with at least $10 million in assets) less than half—42.3 percent—paid no federal income tax in 2012. Of those large corporations whose financial statements reported a profit, 19.5 percent paid no federal income tax that year..."
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-363
There is overwhelming evidence contradicting their suggestion that American corporations are actually taxed at a rate of 35%. Why do these rich tax scheme peddlers think they can continue to spew this nonsense and get away with it?
5
Corporate tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are half what they were in the 60's and still much lower than in the 90's. Let's bring home the offshore corporate profits and give some tax incentives for research and capital investment without giving away the farm.
2
"A study by the Tax Foundation and Kevin A. Hassett, then at the American Enterprise Institute and now the chairman of President Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, found that middle-class wages rise when business taxes fall." Yup. Not sure, but my guess is that middle class wages probably rise about 1% and corporate profits rise 100%.
The tax code is filled with special interest deductions. They won't get rid of them, they have been bought and paid for. The only way to have a simpler tax code with lower rates and be revenue neutral is to get rid of deductions.
The Reagan tax cuts which were bi-partisan reduced lots of deductions or capped them. They also lowered rates. The real beauty of those tax cuts is Cap gains and dividends were taxed at the same rate of income which was a significant tax on the rich who's wealth is mostly passive income. Both cap gains and dividends taxes were cut under Clinton and Bush.
If you cut Corporate tax rates you could increase cap gains and dividend taxes to offset them. The beauty of that is that people instead of corporations will be paying the taxes on corporate earnings. People vote, corporations lobby. More voting and less lobbying might also be good for the country and the economy.
The Reagan tax cuts which were bi-partisan reduced lots of deductions or capped them. They also lowered rates. The real beauty of those tax cuts is Cap gains and dividends were taxed at the same rate of income which was a significant tax on the rich who's wealth is mostly passive income. Both cap gains and dividends taxes were cut under Clinton and Bush.
If you cut Corporate tax rates you could increase cap gains and dividend taxes to offset them. The beauty of that is that people instead of corporations will be paying the taxes on corporate earnings. People vote, corporations lobby. More voting and less lobbying might also be good for the country and the economy.
1
This is more supply-side tax policy. The data supporting this policy is at best arguable. The long-run benefits of the Kennedy tax cut coincided with major demographic changes in the US, including the movement of the the baby boomers from school to employment and new families. The Reagan tax cuts impacted rates that were higher those imposed on today's corporations or individuals, and were accompanied by both falling oil prices and falling interest rates.
A question these authors will not answer is this: what good does the present income distribution do for the US society as a whole?
Phrased another way: what good are all these billionaires?
A question these authors will not answer is this: what good does the present income distribution do for the US society as a whole?
Phrased another way: what good are all these billionaires?
2
" should be to fix the federal corporate and small-business tax system, which has made America increasingly uncompetitive in global markets and has reduced jobs and wages here at home"
How so? American corporations overseas ensure that most taxes on profits made are not paid to the countries they make huge profits by many methods employed including that taxes should be paid where "Head Offices" are situated, which happen to be Low or no Tax charging countries.The recent case between Ireland , Apple and the EU is a case in point.
Not to mention the fact that many corporations are withholding all their Corporate Tax owed and not paying huge sums that are being kept offshore, denying the Federal Government of most tax.
Seems to me and the Stock Market that most American companies are doing very, very well and are very competitive against other companies in most global
markets.
Even without these other facts and actions conducted by many Multinational Corporations, there is no American Company paying 35% corporate Tax...it's just not true.
How so? American corporations overseas ensure that most taxes on profits made are not paid to the countries they make huge profits by many methods employed including that taxes should be paid where "Head Offices" are situated, which happen to be Low or no Tax charging countries.The recent case between Ireland , Apple and the EU is a case in point.
Not to mention the fact that many corporations are withholding all their Corporate Tax owed and not paying huge sums that are being kept offshore, denying the Federal Government of most tax.
Seems to me and the Stock Market that most American companies are doing very, very well and are very competitive against other companies in most global
markets.
Even without these other facts and actions conducted by many Multinational Corporations, there is no American Company paying 35% corporate Tax...it's just not true.
Let's start with a more progressive income tax without deductions. Corporations should not be able to avoid taxes by keeping money overseas. Capital gains taxes should be taxed at the same rate as income taxes and the carried-interest tax should be replaced with the income tax.
1
Predicatable proposal from this rogue's gallery of right wing radicals. Serve the 1 percent. Impose a regressive tax on the 99 percent in the form of transportation fees. This is a non-starter for anyone interested in fairness and equity.
This is the same old tired "trickle down" economics that the likes of washed up old has beens like Larry Kudlow and Arthur Laffer, and Stephen Moore have been promulgating for years. To appreciate how outrageous their seemingly reasonable proposals are here, it helps to know the following about social, human sciences. It is rare indeed that theories from the realm of the social sciences ever get what amounts to an empirical test of their truth and falsehood. Freudianism or Marxism are notorious examples of theories that philosophers of science have criticized for being "non-falsifiable". So it is more than a little remarkable that we have two empirical tests of Trickle Down economic theory in the last decade. The Bush tax cuts leading to the 08/09 crash and the more recent example of the Brownback's literal application of trickle down in the state of Kansas. Both of these tests have failed in spectacular fashion, and yet these old idealogues still preach and proselytize the public to do their level best to con the public one more time to transfer wealth up the ladder to the top 5%. Like all true believers, no matter what the empirical data is, no matter how glaring the empirical refutations of specific tenets of trickle down they always have a meta explanation to dismiss the facts. These three are way past their prime... Their views have calcified from literally 20 years ago.
1
And when it lowers tax rates on corporations, Congress should mandate that much of this savings be passed on to workers, or said corporations risk large fines. Otherwise, many corporate leaders will simply pocket the extra money themselves.
1.Since 50% of Americans pay no income taxes any tax cut is a matter of complete indifference to them.
2. Tax reform should have twin goals of reducing income disparity and reducing the deficit. Ergo taxes should be raised for the wealthiest Americans and Corporations which far from being non-competitive are making record profits.
3. Increased revenues should in part be used to reduce the deficit and the remainder spent on Infrastructure, Health Care and Education,,,not on Defense,Walls and trips to Mar a Lago.
2. Tax reform should have twin goals of reducing income disparity and reducing the deficit. Ergo taxes should be raised for the wealthiest Americans and Corporations which far from being non-competitive are making record profits.
3. Increased revenues should in part be used to reduce the deficit and the remainder spent on Infrastructure, Health Care and Education,,,not on Defense,Walls and trips to Mar a Lago.
I am a LIberal, and I am in favour of lowering the corporate tax rate. This is probably the only thing I will ever agree with Trump on :)
Canada lowered its Corporate tax rate to 15% back in the 1990s. They paid for it by instituting a type of VAT tax, thus transferring the cost to the consumer rather than the producer. Canadians HATED it because everything suddenly had a 8 percent sales tax added on, while corporations did not pass on their savings in the form of lower prices. This resulted in conservatives in Canada being out of power for the next 13 years...to the point where they were almost deregistered as a party.
And yet...it helped Canada tremendously. It increased employment, helped close the trade deficit, and helped Canada achieve budget surpluses for over a decade. In fact, they didnt get a deficit again until the Conservatives got back into power, but that is another tale.
The problems with this path in America are legion. American politicians will not put their reelection prospects at risk by making their own constituents furious with a VAT. American corporations would also not pass on savings. Any budget surplus in the USA would quickly be squandered, not on social programs like Canada, but on yet another way to nuke the world , when we already can do it 500 times over with our current stock.
Canada lowered its Corporate tax rate to 15% back in the 1990s. They paid for it by instituting a type of VAT tax, thus transferring the cost to the consumer rather than the producer. Canadians HATED it because everything suddenly had a 8 percent sales tax added on, while corporations did not pass on their savings in the form of lower prices. This resulted in conservatives in Canada being out of power for the next 13 years...to the point where they were almost deregistered as a party.
And yet...it helped Canada tremendously. It increased employment, helped close the trade deficit, and helped Canada achieve budget surpluses for over a decade. In fact, they didnt get a deficit again until the Conservatives got back into power, but that is another tale.
The problems with this path in America are legion. American politicians will not put their reelection prospects at risk by making their own constituents furious with a VAT. American corporations would also not pass on savings. Any budget surplus in the USA would quickly be squandered, not on social programs like Canada, but on yet another way to nuke the world , when we already can do it 500 times over with our current stock.
1
" The Republicans tried to fix the trillion-dollar health insurance market instead of keeping the focus on repealing Obamacare."
NO. They had voted on "repealing" the ACA too many times to remember. The SIMPLE problem was REPLACING the ACA with "something better", as the person in the WH had stated, multiple times.
It's where the repubs always lose their footing. THEY HAVE NO SOLUTIONS.
The only driving force in their proposals is tax breaks for the ultra wealthy. That's behind everything, and that's why they can't move forward. They really have no interest in, nor sense of responsibility towards improving the lives of American citizens. It's all about the rich. It's all about corruption.
NO. They had voted on "repealing" the ACA too many times to remember. The SIMPLE problem was REPLACING the ACA with "something better", as the person in the WH had stated, multiple times.
It's where the repubs always lose their footing. THEY HAVE NO SOLUTIONS.
The only driving force in their proposals is tax breaks for the ultra wealthy. That's behind everything, and that's why they can't move forward. They really have no interest in, nor sense of responsibility towards improving the lives of American citizens. It's all about the rich. It's all about corruption.
1
"For this strategy to work, Republicans need to take several steps. First, President Trump and Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, should stop insisting on “revenue neutrality.” In the short term, the bill will add to the deficit."
________________________________________________
Until the tax cut group can tell us how this is all supposed to work out long term without running up trillions of dollars of additional debt, it sounds like just another repeat of the pie-in-the-sky, trickle-down scam to once again shift more wealth to the wealthy. Let's see some specifics on how exactly cutting taxes and adding to our deficit will one day make America great again. The two seem to be at odds with one another. When exactly will Trump's promise of a great America with a balanced budget actually come into being?
________________________________________________
Until the tax cut group can tell us how this is all supposed to work out long term without running up trillions of dollars of additional debt, it sounds like just another repeat of the pie-in-the-sky, trickle-down scam to once again shift more wealth to the wealthy. Let's see some specifics on how exactly cutting taxes and adding to our deficit will one day make America great again. The two seem to be at odds with one another. When exactly will Trump's promise of a great America with a balanced budget actually come into being?
All four listed writers of this piece are not giving us the truth. First, change the corporate tax to 25% and you can meet Ryan's revenue neutrality goal because no corporation pays that level of tax. Note that 32 corporations of the DOW 500 paid no tax in 2016, 111 paid no tax in one of the last 5 years, and corporate tax receipts by the Federal government have dropped from 26% in 1986 to 9% in 2006. Trickle down economics does not work because corporations do not use the breaks for new business. Why would they start a new process that might or might not work when they simply receive the money without effort. Business schools have looked and this theory over and over and simply said it does not work. The only corporate entity that might need an advantage are the S family corporations that help farming families. Private financing of infrastructure is an approach to allow the 5% who control 80% of capital assets in the US to buy public infrastructure and make us pay to use it. We need to increase the tax on the wealthiest 20% in the US to return to a reasonable mix of taxes on wealth and reduce the number of corporate specific deductions that deny us a reasonable contribution from corporations. Foreign governments and the US have 3 years of experience now and will solve the problem of forcing the revenues back to the country in which they belong. These guys did not mention Republicans handicapped the IRS in their fight to collect taxes from corporate black holes.
1
The prospect of having real wages increase by *nearly* 10 percent over the next decade should really have middle class Americans dancing in the streets. They'll be able to use that money to pay the tolls that will let them get out there and party.
Arthur Laffer is the guy who assured Kansas lawmakers that cutting our state taxes would jump-start the Kansas economy. They bit. It was, as Governor Brownback proclaimed, a bold "experiment". The data are in and the experiment failed. All the tax cut gave us was a lowered state credit rating, severe cuts to education, an even shakier state pension plan, and less impressive economic measures than comparable states. Don't fall for this stuff!
1
Impossible to judge any tax reform until Americans know how it affects President Trump. Taxes are an expression of society working to achieve a common goal, so they must be transparent, and based on credible premises. This seems impossible with the current POTUS.
Want to know how these "gentlemen" really feel about the American people - or how much they care about individual human lives? It's easy. They claim that the problem with the Republican approach to healthcare is that the Congress and President should have just focused "on repealing Obamacare." First, this is insultingly oversimplified. Second, if it could have been accomplished, it would have thrown millions and millions of people off of their healthcare.
These guys, and others who try to sell supply-side, trickle-down, voodoo economics DO NOT care about people. They care about profits and the god they worship - the "free" market, which they turn to as a panacea for every ill.
They are ideologues, plain and simple, and only want what will help their own bottom lines.
These guys, and others who try to sell supply-side, trickle-down, voodoo economics DO NOT care about people. They care about profits and the god they worship - the "free" market, which they turn to as a panacea for every ill.
They are ideologues, plain and simple, and only want what will help their own bottom lines.
Kudlow is still selling his snake oil: Tax cuts creates economic growth creates deficit reduction. It failed under Reagan. It failed under Bush II. It will fail under Trump. Business grows when people have money to spend, not when they get tax cuts. If wages are economic growth are stagnant, taxation and fiscal priorities need to be directed toward workers, not owners.
The Times could hardly pick a quartet of authors whose economic predictions have been less accurate. Laffer is best known for his contention that Federal tax cuts would increase Federal tax revenue; it never happened. Kudlow's predictions have been so laughable that they became a regular feature of Jon Stewart's Daily Show.
2
Republicans or Democrats, taxes are what they use to exercise control over people and their spending. Giving up control is a very hard thing to do.
One of the longest periods of prosperity that these Republicans fail to recognize, the return to prosperity under President Obama; the recovery from the Bush Great Recession.
2
All you have to do is read this column to understand why tax reform is so hard for Republicans. This space ignores what must be the most important goal of tax reform. Tax reform should primarily address the terrible economic and social and political effects of income sequestration by the wealthy. We have got to restore the Great Middle in this country, and the advice in this column does nothing to do that. Tax reform should be a major vehicle for restoring the middle class.
1
The authors lie. And how about creating more roads with tolls? The middle class and poor will be hurt, once again, by large corporations taking advantage. What is it about the Republicans who continue to trounce the little guy?
1
Ah yes, it's so simple. Cut corporate tax rates but don't do anything about the endless loopholes that allow many companies to avoid paying taxes at all. Allow them to escape taxes they already owe by giving repatriated profits special treatment. Punt on a tax cut for actual workers, assuring them that the largess being bestowed on the capitalists will--you can believe us, this time it will be different, really--eventually trickle down in the form of a pay raise. Donald Trump is the only person I can think of who has less credibility on taxes than this foursome.
The tired and fallacious argument that cutting taxes will increase wages pushed by these authors has been proven false time and again--see Kansas. That the authors continue to push these ideas in the face of such evidence suggests that these authors are not simply showing wrong-headedness, but engaging in active and willful deception.
3
Any tax plan with the fingerprints of Arthur Laffer and Steve Forbes should be DOA as far as I'm concerned. Laffer's theory of supply side economics has been consistently shown to be a right-wing myth that only amounts to tax cuts for the rich and decreased benefits for the poor. A yacht purchase for a billionaire will hardly "trickle down" to the common man. As for Steve Forbes and his flat tax mania, any one who really looks closely at his suggestion will understand that it is extraordinarily unfair. 10% of income on a person making a million is not the same as 10% of income from a teacher earning $45,000. So much for Trump being a populist!
1
The idea that Republicans failed at healthcare reform because they didn't stick to just repealing Obamacare--repeal and replace being too complicated--is tantamount to saying that Republicans blew it by bothering to put up a pretense of doing some public good. That symbolizes the central lesson of this opinion piece: Do not waste time worrying about the public good.
The column writers have a poor record of accurate economic and financial prediction. Tax cuts always seem to start at the top levels and have never proven to be cause of economic stimulus contrary to their repetitious notions. In fact just the opposite has proven more successful. Kansas is the latest of their voodoo schemes gone bad. At least tell the truth about Tax percentage corporations actually pay if your looking for readers to take your work as substantive.
There are other important changes to the tax code that the authors should address.
First, we need to start taxing for the first time the very richest in the country. I am referring to the multi-billion dollar tax free endowments of universities and private foundations. We should end tax-exempt status. The "non profit" sector has grown huge, they no longer need the enormous tax subsidy. Everyone should be brought into the tax tent.
Second, we need to end the charitable deduction. This is personal spending, and should no longer be tax deductible. Most charitable spending already comes from people who do not itemize. It is inexcusable Gates and Buffett, to take two prominent examples, get to dodge taxes by putting their money into private foundations that they they control.
Third, it's time to end the tax freedom of muni bonds. The 1% can legally shield all their income from taxes with the simple expedient of buying tax-preferred debt. This is wrong, and it has led to massive over borrowing at the state and local levels.
These simple changes could fund a very large middle class tax cut.
First, we need to start taxing for the first time the very richest in the country. I am referring to the multi-billion dollar tax free endowments of universities and private foundations. We should end tax-exempt status. The "non profit" sector has grown huge, they no longer need the enormous tax subsidy. Everyone should be brought into the tax tent.
Second, we need to end the charitable deduction. This is personal spending, and should no longer be tax deductible. Most charitable spending already comes from people who do not itemize. It is inexcusable Gates and Buffett, to take two prominent examples, get to dodge taxes by putting their money into private foundations that they they control.
Third, it's time to end the tax freedom of muni bonds. The 1% can legally shield all their income from taxes with the simple expedient of buying tax-preferred debt. This is wrong, and it has led to massive over borrowing at the state and local levels.
These simple changes could fund a very large middle class tax cut.
30
Hey. I'm not the 1%. Far from it. Just a middle-class person (where I live, my salary is middle class even though in Iowa it might be a good living) who has a muni bond fund for the tax benefits because I need them. The market is not a great place for people like me although I have some investments there, too. Don't assume that only the wealthy hold muni bonds or buy into muni bond trusts.
And when it comes to taxing those that are currently escaping their civic obligations, don't forget the churches....
2
The authors' picture could very well serve as a definition of corporate self-interest. Our public infrastructure won't end up being very public anymore if these guys get their way. So the U.S. government is going to take public money and sell it to private firms. And Congress will impose a “repatriation fee” on the $2.5 trillion corporations have squirreled overseas, to avoid the 35 percent corporate tax rate. Great for them considering the money is essentially a gigantic tax avoidance scheme to begin with. And we will sell $1 trillion in revenue-producing bonds, making sure the investors get paid. You like toll roads? You like paying for parking on the "public" streets? The projects will be contracted out to ensure at least 10 percent profit. In the end the companies skimp on quality and can walk away when the road they build falls apart.
64
This plan is brilliant and simple: The lower 15 % corporate tax rate will incentivize US multinationals to bring manufacturing jobs back from i.e., China, where the corporate rate is now 25% (US Manufacturing was lured there in the first place when China's rate was in the single digits for foreign-owned entities vs a 35% corporate tax here). With this, a border tax would not be necessary. Meanwhile, the rapid depreciation measures would allow US firms to ramp up manufacturing again quickly. It will also make moot most tax-motivated corporate inversion efforts and should finish Ireland( and its "double Irish" schemes) as a tax haven to where valuable US intangibles have been transferred( along with their income-earning potential) with virtual impunity.
Finally, using a tax on the repatriation of US multinational's cash held offshore to fund infrastructure is elegant and simple. So Democrats, this is how economic growth works in a capitalist country with the resulting job growth for the working and middle class funded by corporate profits. I can't wait to see how you're going to stare this gift horse in the mouth.
Finally, using a tax on the repatriation of US multinational's cash held offshore to fund infrastructure is elegant and simple. So Democrats, this is how economic growth works in a capitalist country with the resulting job growth for the working and middle class funded by corporate profits. I can't wait to see how you're going to stare this gift horse in the mouth.
9
See: Kansas.
Simple, yes. "Brilliant", not even close. If you are not persuaded by the many comments already posted, then you are ignoring way too many facts, way too much history.
We tried this before. Reagan's tax cuts created a huge windfall for the wealthy, especially those who make most of their money off investments, and not surprisingly, they liked it.
However, this windfall created a cycle of greed among corporate investors. They began demanding higher and higher profits by any means necessary. If this meant shutting down manufacturing plants, cutting back on the number of workers, depressing wages, hiring illegal immigrants, letting "expensive" older workers go to be replaced by younger, cheaper workers, giving mortgages to any warm body, or raping the environment, well, everyone just had to sacrifice---except the investors.
It was at this same time that corporations began hiring only business majors, preferably MBAs, instead of their former practice of hiring liberal arts majors and training them in-house or paying for them to earn an MBA at night.
Trained in Milton Friedman's deceptive and morally bankrupt economics and focused on studies that emphasized the bottom line above all, they continued and exacerbated these self-destructive tendencies within the American business community.
And we should listen to four men whose policies brought us greater economic displacement, inequality, environmental degradation, crony capitalism, and wars of choice?
However, this windfall created a cycle of greed among corporate investors. They began demanding higher and higher profits by any means necessary. If this meant shutting down manufacturing plants, cutting back on the number of workers, depressing wages, hiring illegal immigrants, letting "expensive" older workers go to be replaced by younger, cheaper workers, giving mortgages to any warm body, or raping the environment, well, everyone just had to sacrifice---except the investors.
It was at this same time that corporations began hiring only business majors, preferably MBAs, instead of their former practice of hiring liberal arts majors and training them in-house or paying for them to earn an MBA at night.
Trained in Milton Friedman's deceptive and morally bankrupt economics and focused on studies that emphasized the bottom line above all, they continued and exacerbated these self-destructive tendencies within the American business community.
And we should listen to four men whose policies brought us greater economic displacement, inequality, environmental degradation, crony capitalism, and wars of choice?
111
All one has to know is who wrote this article. Then throw it in the trash. Laffer with his no taxes equals infinite government revenue. Larry Kudlow. the befuddled one. Forbes primo geniture.
Stephan Moore who is he, oh well birds of a feather.
Stephan Moore who is he, oh well birds of a feather.
4
Ask the folks in Kansas how this strategy worked for them...more or less bankrupted the State Government, and no cornucopia of jobs and investment. The rich guys (and gals) just pocketed all the money.
9
The Committee to Unleash Prosperity has spoken, why are we not removing the leashes pronto. Who in their right mind would not listen to these four geniuses, who were never wrong ever about anything. And don't you dare start to google them, gently step away from the keyboard.
4
Kudlow and the others are old guys stuck the past like our goofy president. They keep haawking tinkledown economics which has given most of the wealtn to thoae who least need it. They want more. Their ideas produced the great recession. Send them off to a senior center to play bingo. A chuckle headed 70 year old President is more than we can take of neocarpetbaggers.
2
This Op-Ed only proves that bad ideas never die. Also, that when people really want to believe something, no amount of evidence, or real world experience will matter.
This article also proves that Republicans only hate deficits when Democrats are in power.
I am old enough to have lived when top income tax rates were 92%, and I never heard anyone say that they would not want to earn enough to pay that rate.
The Republican Party has degenerated into a party with only one purpose, and that purpose is not to govern our country, but to cut taxes for the wealthy, and everything and anyone else be damned.
This article also proves that Republicans only hate deficits when Democrats are in power.
I am old enough to have lived when top income tax rates were 92%, and I never heard anyone say that they would not want to earn enough to pay that rate.
The Republican Party has degenerated into a party with only one purpose, and that purpose is not to govern our country, but to cut taxes for the wealthy, and everything and anyone else be damned.
3
Consider what others have to say about 35 years of false policy of this clown car and their neolib friends that has destroyed the American middle class. https://youtu.be/zytqTSh3oGw.
KANSAS. PEROID.
7
What is this? Open mike night at the Times? Where is the graphic of the Laffer Curve? I'd "laff" if I weren't afraid someone in high offic might take these people seriously.
4
He said "sell to the American people" meant bamboozle us. Cleaverly demands congress send up a "jobs bill". I thought the piece was on taxes. I'll wait for Dr. Krugmans opinion on this.
3
“In the aftermath of the health care blowup, President Trump and the Republicans need a legislative victory. Tax reform probably should have gone first, but now is the time to move it forward with urgency.”
Actually it is the American people, red, blue or whatever that need a victory. GOP tax reform is not likely to be it — however it gets cobbled together.
Revenue neutral? I buy the no recommendation.
Business first? Not doing the whole magillah at once makes strong sense. Choose the best way to prime the pump of growth and get on with it.
My profound worry? That the rest of the job will not get done and the little guys will be left holding the empty burlap bag.
Up front I want to see a formal contract with the nation —one that lays out how the whole deal gets done with targets for sequential actions — not just the business and corporate part.
Actually it is the American people, red, blue or whatever that need a victory. GOP tax reform is not likely to be it — however it gets cobbled together.
Revenue neutral? I buy the no recommendation.
Business first? Not doing the whole magillah at once makes strong sense. Choose the best way to prime the pump of growth and get on with it.
My profound worry? That the rest of the job will not get done and the little guys will be left holding the empty burlap bag.
Up front I want to see a formal contract with the nation —one that lays out how the whole deal gets done with targets for sequential actions — not just the business and corporate part.
2
Baseball's bogus math:
Instead of calling this tax cut pitch for the rich the Laffer curve, let's instead call it this Republican/Libertarian pitch the Trump screwball.
Instead of calling this tax cut pitch for the rich the Laffer curve, let's instead call it this Republican/Libertarian pitch the Trump screwball.
4
This sounds like what the Repugnicans did across the border in Kansas and the results of that are there for all to see: no growth spike and draconian budgets for investment fundamentals like education and infrastructure.
2
Any tax reform that makes rich folk richer should be an automatic no go. Haven't we had enough of these moneygrabbers? They get wealthier and then scream about what we cannot afford: healthcare, education, infrastructure, mass transit, etc. What we really can't afford are these ever-needy rich folks.
3
You lost me at Congress screwed up the health bill by not exclusively concentrating on repealing the ACA. You all almost make me hate Congress a little less. Really, taking away health care from millions was your priority? I may not know much about tax reform but I know enough to check my sources and you guys don't pass the smell rest.
5
Same conservative pablum. Take from the poor and give to the rich. Now they have to show Trump how that tax program benefits him. Then they can get him to push it. There always has to be something for Trump.
3
This article in the physical paper has the headline, "For Tax Reform, Just Keep It Simple." They forgot to add the last word in that statement, "STUPID." It's not KISS for nothing. Tax reform that's too simple is for the stupid guy, who thinks it will do anything for anyone who isn't rich.
1
I can appreciate every single one of the gentlemen who contributed to this piece.
However, they seem to have gone against their own advice: "Keep it simple, stupid."
They were right on track with their three goals for the legislation. Then, they had to complicate it by trying to get Democrats on board. Screw that. If the plan is good for America (and it is) and we can pass it with Republican votes, then who CARES if the Democrats come along for the ride?
Do the right thing. Keep it simple, stupid...and PASS the damned thing!
One more thing that would IRK Democrats...I would LOVE if they would make the tax cuts retro-active to the beginning of 2017. In the '90's they retro-actively raised taxes, why can't we now retro-actively cut taxes? (I know...that wouldn't be simple, stupid.)
However, they seem to have gone against their own advice: "Keep it simple, stupid."
They were right on track with their three goals for the legislation. Then, they had to complicate it by trying to get Democrats on board. Screw that. If the plan is good for America (and it is) and we can pass it with Republican votes, then who CARES if the Democrats come along for the ride?
Do the right thing. Keep it simple, stupid...and PASS the damned thing!
One more thing that would IRK Democrats...I would LOVE if they would make the tax cuts retro-active to the beginning of 2017. In the '90's they retro-actively raised taxes, why can't we now retro-actively cut taxes? (I know...that wouldn't be simple, stupid.)
Let's talk politics for a minute.
Sure, in the end its all about money but for the time being we'll eschew dollar signs.
You four Great Deceivers make much of the damning complexity of the tax code. No argument from me.
But for Pete's sake, can you at least admit that you, and people like you, are reason our taxes have become an uber-Gordian Knot?
You big-business-is-all-and-deserves-a-special-treat-now-and-then types have made careers and fortunes lobbying for advantageous changes to tax law. You have succeeded to the point of sometimes getting amendments that apply to one single corporation.
Now you're doing what people like you always do: having spent your life force and your fortune getting just what you want, you sock away the spoils and then you throw a public tantrum about how complicated and "burdensome" your responsibilities are, how that prevents you from helping the janitor in your Poughkeepsie plant from earning what you really, deeply wish he could, and you start lobbying all over again. To undo what you did and lay the blame on your opponent du jour.
From the outside, it's a pretty good game well played, from the inside it's you wantonly ruining people's lives as one way to pass a lazy afternoon.
Sure, in the end its all about money but for the time being we'll eschew dollar signs.
You four Great Deceivers make much of the damning complexity of the tax code. No argument from me.
But for Pete's sake, can you at least admit that you, and people like you, are reason our taxes have become an uber-Gordian Knot?
You big-business-is-all-and-deserves-a-special-treat-now-and-then types have made careers and fortunes lobbying for advantageous changes to tax law. You have succeeded to the point of sometimes getting amendments that apply to one single corporation.
Now you're doing what people like you always do: having spent your life force and your fortune getting just what you want, you sock away the spoils and then you throw a public tantrum about how complicated and "burdensome" your responsibilities are, how that prevents you from helping the janitor in your Poughkeepsie plant from earning what you really, deeply wish he could, and you start lobbying all over again. To undo what you did and lay the blame on your opponent du jour.
From the outside, it's a pretty good game well played, from the inside it's you wantonly ruining people's lives as one way to pass a lazy afternoon.
1
stop with the word reform. every time a politician says reform it means another give-a-way of tax money or a lowering of services.
How about we reform politicians' salaries and perks????? Good luck.
Tax reform, another grab bag for the wealthy.
How about we reform politicians' salaries and perks????? Good luck.
Tax reform, another grab bag for the wealthy.
3
Just the list of authors is enough to make me burst out laughing.
4
The reason many politicians, including Republicans, find it difficult is that many of their supporters rely on the deductions in the current tax code. Simplifying it means less deductions. As one example, wealthier Americans are helped by the mortgage interest deduction but not as much as real estate agents. If the Republicans try to cancel that deduction the real estate lobby will be on their case in no time. The deficit will never be lowered when there are so many special interest groups with their business models tied to low taxes or income tax deductions.
2
Dear Christ! What a clown-car of authors!
Tax-reform is hard for the GOP because the GOP is a lying bunch of greedy swine. Health-insurance reform came first because the GOP wanted to see just how much money they could take away from the people to give to the wealthy. The details are window-dressing, whether it's Moore's flat-tax or the pocket-postcard tax form of Forbes. The overall aim is to flow the money upwards.
Tax-reform is hard for the GOP because the GOP is a lying bunch of greedy swine. Health-insurance reform came first because the GOP wanted to see just how much money they could take away from the people to give to the wealthy. The details are window-dressing, whether it's Moore's flat-tax or the pocket-postcard tax form of Forbes. The overall aim is to flow the money upwards.
Yeah, that Laffer plan is a real laugher. Just ask the poor folks in Kansas.
7
Allow me to address the elephant (so to speak) in the room: "Republicans" aren't making tax reform hard, the "president" is. Until we know exactly how our Grifter-in-Chief makes money, and how the plan may benefit him, forget about tax reform and find something else do to until 2020.
11
Unbelievable - As a lifetime Republican I cannot believe my party is still the party of dumb and dumber. These guys know better. They are peddling what will greatly benefit themselves. Steve Forbes fighting for the middle class?? Nah.
They lost me at "Laffer."
The name "Committee to unleash Prosperity" is enough said. What a bunch of fools.
6
Trash the entire tax code and start over
So, the wealthiest slice of our society says give us a tax break and then pile on more deficit spending. Yeah, we've never tried that before. Thanks Steve et al., but no thanks.
6
An opinion piece by opiniated opiniators, truly cringeworthy. Each of these media dependent "free market capitalists" makes their living by promoting a frequently discredited view. Pass them by in the marketplace of advice.
4
LOL, like Arthur Laffer has any credibility left. Go spoil some more napkins, Arthur! But don't try to make policy.
3
Ha Ha Ha. Keep it Simple, Stupid. This just shows what a bunch of plumbers these guys are. Let us have our tax cuts, and privatize infrastructure so we can continue to soak the poor. It is laughable that they have anyone even listening to them, but it shows clearly who has the levers of power. Wonder what Joe the Plumber would say?
4
I remember watching Kudlow on his show for CNBC a number of years back when W was in power; with his statement (Kudlows') that deficits don't matter
You have got to be kidding me. The authors of this editorial are some of the biggest charlatans, and liars in the public sphere. Please go away, you have done enough damage. Take that Laffer's curve and follow it off a cliff.
3
Question for the Authors: So at the end of that perfect supply side world of the Reagan Admin, Bush 1 and Bush 2 administrations, what happened to the American Middle class? They took got the short end of the stick. How many times do these ideals have to fail for them to be pronounced DOA once and for all?
4
"Trickle down". The GOPs effort to put a populace face on a Fat Cat's ripoff. The Republican idea of tax reform is as stale as last week's bread.
5
Well written and articulated. It seems so simple because it is that simple. RINO's are as big of a problem as Democrats...each group has unique reason for wanting Trump to fail at America's expense. Imagine if ALL politicos came out for America First?
Only in America would bozos who have been discredited by reality time and time again be allowed to peddle their toxic nonsense in a major organ of public relations.
These guys can afford to fund their own propaganda publications or to buy a paid advertisement. Why is the New York Times giving them an open forum (for free?) so they can reassure the comfortable that wealth inequality is not dangerous for the economy and fatal to prospects for democracy?
These guys can afford to fund their own propaganda publications or to buy a paid advertisement. Why is the New York Times giving them an open forum (for free?) so they can reassure the comfortable that wealth inequality is not dangerous for the economy and fatal to prospects for democracy?
3
I love the descriptor 'Trump bounce'......visualizing seals doing tricks with brightly colored spheres. I can see through the 'wisdom' behind this little game, get the corporates what they want first (while dismantling the administrative state for good measure), score it in the 'win' column and a triumph follows. In the meantime, the real goring occurs after the 2018 election, more regressive taxes. Pffft...
2
Why waste time? All you need to do is read the byline.
4
Why publish the tripe from these clowns? Someone might mistake them for serious people.
3
I understand that the Times wants to be somewhat balanced, but it is ridiculous to waste space on yet another tired right-wing rant about supply-side economics. You are insulting your readers with this tripe.
Wow...Steve Moore is shameless.
Mr. Moore was the genius behind Governor Brownback's idiotic Kansas economic debacle caused by slashing taxes on the leisure investor class and now he wants to share that same idiocy will the the entire country.
Wow...shameless.
Mr. Moore was the genius behind Governor Brownback's idiotic Kansas economic debacle caused by slashing taxes on the leisure investor class and now he wants to share that same idiocy will the the entire country.
Wow...shameless.
7
The four horsemen of the economic apocalypse chime in with idiocy and the NY Times gives voice to their idiocy.
Perhaps the flat earth society deserves space now too?
Perhaps the flat earth society deserves space now too?
4
By now we should understand that this president is unable to digest this kind of information ... I personally believe he is dyslexic. And good luck trying to get him and Ryan together. Not to mention losing track of an aircraft carrier.
Lol, great parody of a bunch of rich old white guys pushing failed paleoconservative ideas but you're late by 19 days. People could actually take this proposal seriously.
3
Lessee ... we have the pale shadow of his father, Malcolm, and the author of the Laffable curve writing tax law. This "reform" will be presided over by Paul Ryan.
What could possibly go wrong?
What could possibly go wrong?
Ugh. Here it is again. "A 35% corporate tax rate is stifling American businesses!"
THIS IS NOWHERE NEAR THE EFFECTIVE RATE PAID BY THE BIGGEST CORPORATIONS. The worst part is: the authors of this piece know that. Sell your voodoo economics somewhere else please. Check the bonuses paid to your executives. Most of you are doing just fine.
THIS IS NOWHERE NEAR THE EFFECTIVE RATE PAID BY THE BIGGEST CORPORATIONS. The worst part is: the authors of this piece know that. Sell your voodoo economics somewhere else please. Check the bonuses paid to your executives. Most of you are doing just fine.
5
Not to mention the fact that clever accountants can make a profitable corporation look unprofitable on paper so that it actually pays NO taxes or even gets a refund.
Corporations deduct employee wages and benefits, R&D, facilities upgrades, day-to-day supplies, marketing expenses, raw materials, unsold inventories, repairs, and every other cost of doing business from their gross receipts to arrive at their taxable income. If a company takes in $10 million and spends $9,900,000 on costs of doing business, then it pays income taxes only on the $100,000 left over, not on the $10 million it took in.
I find that most Americans do not know this, which is why they are apt to be taken in by claims that income taxes are destroying American business.
But these four charlatans DO know how corporations are taxed, so shame on them for lying.
Corporations deduct employee wages and benefits, R&D, facilities upgrades, day-to-day supplies, marketing expenses, raw materials, unsold inventories, repairs, and every other cost of doing business from their gross receipts to arrive at their taxable income. If a company takes in $10 million and spends $9,900,000 on costs of doing business, then it pays income taxes only on the $100,000 left over, not on the $10 million it took in.
I find that most Americans do not know this, which is why they are apt to be taken in by claims that income taxes are destroying American business.
But these four charlatans DO know how corporations are taxed, so shame on them for lying.
More trickle-down garbage. I hope Paul Krugman is warming up his typewriter to expose these jokers...
2
Is this the long sought after proof that even drunk monkeys could produce, on a typewriter, a story, if left before the keyboard long enough?
All lies intended to lower taxes on th erich and starve any public programs. May all the off spring of the people you rob, pillage and burn your corrupt selves and families. THEN IT MIGHT BE PERSONEL .
3
too bad this is a written editorial - El Presidente doesn't read
1
My vote for President Trump (still loving writing those words) was, at least in part, to drive a stake through the heart of the no-longer-relevant Republican Party.
With their idiotic obamadon'tcare Lite legislation and now their foot dragging on something as basic as tax reform I am more persuaded than ever I was right.
With their idiotic obamadon'tcare Lite legislation and now their foot dragging on something as basic as tax reform I am more persuaded than ever I was right.
I'm amazed the whole Laffer Curve rationale hasn't been laughed off the planet.
Alas, in America the Stupid, anything that garners money is ipso facto brilliant, even if the money is just wallpaper over rank idiocy.
Alas, in America the Stupid, anything that garners money is ipso facto brilliant, even if the money is just wallpaper over rank idiocy.
3
More voodoo economics from those from whom you'd expect it. This op-ed is nothing but ideology dressed up as a serious policy discussion. Not a mention, of course, of the lack of demand that results when the vast amount oif tax relief goes to so-called "job creators" without putting an additional penny into the pockets of potential consumers. And, of course, the infrastructure suggestion of roads and bridges for private gain. What could more Trumpian than using government funds to enrich the already wealthy while depriving the rest of us with access to critical resources, unless we pay regularly for them. Sad to see the NYT bending over backwards to show that they too can be on a level with Fox News so as to kiss the hand of Tubby Trump, the Emoluments King.
2
"And, if we are right..."
That about sums it up. Given your results with Supply Side economic theory - aka Voodoo Economics, "Tinkle-down" Economics - I don't share your confidence. "Fool me once .....".
That about sums it up. Given your results with Supply Side economic theory - aka Voodoo Economics, "Tinkle-down" Economics - I don't share your confidence. "Fool me once .....".
3
Forbes, Kudlow, Laffer and Moore (a.k.a. The Four Horsemen of the Fraudopolypse) had their minions write yet another retread of their horrible ideas which have been debunked in theory and practice. The tax bill they call for in this column would be even more reviled than the putrid and contemptible Ryan health care reform bill.
Does anyone other than the filthy rich or ideologically credulous listen to these guys!?!?
Does anyone other than the filthy rich or ideologically credulous listen to these guys!?!?
2
Another welfare plan for the Uber rich?
When are you yokels going to understand you ALREADY got all the middle classes money.
Now let me give you a clue, we are a market based economy where:
Market (sometimes jobs) = investors business plan PAYING CUSTOMERS
Exactly how many times are you rich folk going to sell each mansions, stocks, art works, etc. and think the economy is working for anyone but yourselves.
When are you yokels going to understand you ALREADY got all the middle classes money.
Now let me give you a clue, we are a market based economy where:
Market (sometimes jobs) = investors business plan PAYING CUSTOMERS
Exactly how many times are you rich folk going to sell each mansions, stocks, art works, etc. and think the economy is working for anyone but yourselves.
3
"In the aftermath of the health care blowup, President Trump and the Republicans need a legislative victory." Why? What he needs, for the health of the USA, is a long confinement in a max-security federal prison. I wish him no physical ill, but he's a disease, and we have to find a remedy. Perhaps then, GOP brains would come out of hibernation, and the idiot boy-scouts would be replaced by statesmen,
1
Amazing how shameless these guys are and the lengths republicans will go to prop up their trickle down economic theories. Beware of white guys in suits who say things like "unleash prosperity." To them, making American great means helping the already obscenely rich get even richer. It's a tape loop that just plays over and over...
Key phrase: "it should be sold to the American people."
Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice shame on us.
Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice shame on us.
1
Our born to privilege leisure class president wants to pump tens of billions more in tax payer money into the Military Industrial Complex, while pouring between 1 and 2 trillion more in tax payer money into infrastructure repair and how does he and his privileged ilk want to pay for this?
By cutting taxes for the leisure class, what else?
This is why the civilized parts of America laughs at clueless rightst voters.
By cutting taxes for the leisure class, what else?
This is why the civilized parts of America laughs at clueless rightst voters.
2
That's a real Laugher from Laffer!
2
I can't help feeling some good old german schadenfreude. With some Jedi mind trick, Republicans took over the entire government. But now their competing schools of greed are stuck in gridlock, and they just can't get on with the pillaging, despite their best efforts. I expect these four fine corporate gentlemen to also get stuck. Why are they writing in the NY Times anyways? Couldn't they get a weekend date at Mar-a-Lago? Is their golf too poor? Sad.
Rubbish.
This "plan" is simply more voo-doo economics to benefit the rich!
This "plan" is simply more voo-doo economics to benefit the rich!
These guys are hilarious. Just cut taxes for the rich and spend trillions on infrastructure for the "little people." The budget will magically balance itself. LOL
This article is 19 days late for publication. Clearly it was written on April Fool's Day.
"First, cut the federal corporate and small-business highest tax rate to 15 percent from 35 percent, which is now one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world."
Typically misleading comment from Repulsives. Corporations need to PAY taxes, not pay less!!!! Many corporations pay 0% taxes. Or hardly any taxes. They're permitted to create inversions to avoid paying taxes - to the tune of trillions of dollars a year - and it's obscene.
Curious that the authors omitted these gargantuan pieces of information.
Oh, and corporate profit margins are at all-time highs, including those of airlines. The grotesque greedy simply get greedier.
Typically misleading comment from Repulsives. Corporations need to PAY taxes, not pay less!!!! Many corporations pay 0% taxes. Or hardly any taxes. They're permitted to create inversions to avoid paying taxes - to the tune of trillions of dollars a year - and it's obscene.
Curious that the authors omitted these gargantuan pieces of information.
Oh, and corporate profit margins are at all-time highs, including those of airlines. The grotesque greedy simply get greedier.
2
These pathetic rightist clowns are from their newly minted and whiney rich guy club Committee to Unleash Prosperity.
Ha, ha, ha, ha...let us guess, if The American People lower the tax rate on born to privilege dweebs like steve forbes then riches will trickle down onto the heads of the poor, right?
Hmmm, let us think.
Okay, we've decided and the answer is NO!!!!
Now about your draft dodging president's tax returns.
Ha, ha, ha, ha...let us guess, if The American People lower the tax rate on born to privilege dweebs like steve forbes then riches will trickle down onto the heads of the poor, right?
Hmmm, let us think.
Okay, we've decided and the answer is NO!!!!
Now about your draft dodging president's tax returns.
Sounds like belief in the tooth fairy is being pushed on us, with a little twist. We should pull a tooth - to leave it under the pillow at night to maybe wake up in the morning to find the dime the fairy's left us. But something tells me belief in the fairy is fading fast. We've heard the story already, many times in fact.
Sure, extol the virtues of "business tax relief" as "a boon for middle-class workers" while dismissing a payroll tax cut as a "curve ball." Yeah, let's funnel tax cuts through middlemen corporations whose collective reason for existence is profit. I'm sure they won't be skimming anything off the top, and pass on the savings to the middle-class workers!
You reveal yourselves when you say the words "sellout to corporations." Because that's exactly what it is, and what you are. Be gone, you zombie peddlers of voodoo economics.
You reveal yourselves when you say the words "sellout to corporations." Because that's exactly what it is, and what you are. Be gone, you zombie peddlers of voodoo economics.
A good try but we all should know by now that trickle down only works in the context of Urology.
This sounds a lot like trickle down economics's, which we all know does not work.
1
The usual conservative pap. Business tax cut is good for everybody!. The middle class might even see an income increase of 10% in TEN years!!. All the general goodies are speculations. What is certain is that the Steve Forbes etal proposal would enrich the rich. With business after-tax income rising, investors would see their business income rise, corporate stock values rise and executive would see increased bonuses. The treasury would lose income, necessitating cuts in social benefits. That is what the hundred million plus working Americans will receive. Benefit cuts, not bonus increases.
Forbes, Kudlow. Laffer & Moore.....thank God no one in America takes these four seriously.
I'm astonished to see an actual commenting option here. Usually when the NYT invites an all-star lineup of idiots, or even a single standout imbecile, to opine on the page, readers have no option to hold up a mirror to the stupid.
So... kudos?
On the substance, of course, this is more of same from some of the most spectacularly wrong "thinkers" of the last half century. Lickspittles for the people who have plundered this economy like Somali pirates with better table manners. In a just world, they couldn't appear in public without getting laughed at till they turn purple. In this one, they get CNN talking head gigs and invites to write for the Times.
So... kudos?
On the substance, of course, this is more of same from some of the most spectacularly wrong "thinkers" of the last half century. Lickspittles for the people who have plundered this economy like Somali pirates with better table manners. In a just world, they couldn't appear in public without getting laughed at till they turn purple. In this one, they get CNN talking head gigs and invites to write for the Times.
Dream on dudes. 45 doesn't release HIS tax returns he is going nowhere fast
The kleptocracy must be stopped here and now
Then on to Russiagate
LOCK HIM UP
The kleptocracy must be stopped here and now
Then on to Russiagate
LOCK HIM UP
So you want to see more cash in the American corporate tills so the corporations can then buy in more of their own stock thus driving the price up so the CEOs can then cash in that appreciated stock they had received as bonuses and all become billionaires. Give me a break!
www.InquiryAbraham.com
www.InquiryAbraham.com
"SNIFF, SNIFF"
Smells like the exact same nasty, born to privilege, swamp dwellers as before.
Man you rust belt idiots fell for draft dodger trump's lies hook-line-and STINKER!
Smells like the exact same nasty, born to privilege, swamp dwellers as before.
Man you rust belt idiots fell for draft dodger trump's lies hook-line-and STINKER!
1
These people were wrong in the 80's and have been ever since. All of them are political hacks that are paid to spew nonsense to the economically illiterate. They come from Wall Street where the norm is to offer the public a bad trade with the hopes that there are still suckers out there to take it. Those of us who worked on the Street remember Kudlow at Bear Stearns where he couldn't keep his nose away from the cocaine long enough to see the damage Wall street was doing to the rest of the economy. There is one fact they can't dispute and that is that corporate taxes paid as a percentage of GDP are half of what they used to be. That amount is equal to 500 Billion plus a year or roughly the entire Federal deficit. The only thing these guys promote are tax cuts for the rich that has produced the largest growth in income inequality since the late 1800's. They have no concern of country and accept no responsibility for the massive debt they have helped to create since Reagan. Conservatives, they are not It is not conservative to gamble the nation's financial integrity for the benefit of a few and then when the bet goes wrong refuse to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. It's no wonder they advised Trump because he has the financial acumen of a moron who couldn't figure out how to make money running a casino. The days of running this country like a casino should come to an abrupt end.
I've been listening to discussion of "tax reform" for more than 50 years now. And for all those 50 years the discussion has been a form of mental masturbation.
The federal income tax system has a fundamental and fatal flaw: it requires that Congress define "taxable income". And the process of "defining" taxable income is why we have 75,000 plus pages of tax code.
The only viable "reform" would be to enact a simple, transparent, flat tax on consumption that protects low- and middle-income taxpayers from the natural regressive aspects of a consumption tax (and that can be done).
Replacing the federal income tax with a flat consumption tax would eliminate Congress' opaque, quid-pro-quo game with wealthy individuals and corporations in shaping exemptions and exclusions through the tax code. And that would go a long way toward returning power to our one-man-one-vote ideal.
The federal income tax system has a fundamental and fatal flaw: it requires that Congress define "taxable income". And the process of "defining" taxable income is why we have 75,000 plus pages of tax code.
The only viable "reform" would be to enact a simple, transparent, flat tax on consumption that protects low- and middle-income taxpayers from the natural regressive aspects of a consumption tax (and that can be done).
Replacing the federal income tax with a flat consumption tax would eliminate Congress' opaque, quid-pro-quo game with wealthy individuals and corporations in shaping exemptions and exclusions through the tax code. And that would go a long way toward returning power to our one-man-one-vote ideal.
Why will Larry Kudlow never give up with this Kennedy tax-cut strawman fairytale?
Kennedy ***SET*** the top tax rate at 70%. That's the fact. Is that what he wants?
Kennedy ***SET*** the top tax rate at 70%. That's the fact. Is that what he wants?
1
"Mr. Trump should demand...." Are you kidding me? That lying con-man has NO right to "demand" anything. He's a hypocritical blowhard who lies with every breath, has zero insight into his shortcomings, and will never fix taxes or anything else. He's a clown and treating him seriously is futile.
Wait a minute, you guys ADVISED this moron?
Why should I pay one scintilla of attention to your plans as merely being close to "Big Bird' means your are covered with "Trump Guano" !
Please, peddle this stuff to the GOP/TEA PARTY/KOCH AFFILIATE/FREEDOM CAUCUS and see how far it gets. As far as the Democrats, I agree with them; what is "Twitler" hiding in his unreleased tax returns! Let him show the public his "income" then discuss changes in the system.
Otherwise, take your snake oil, get back in your cart and head to some other "Banana Republic".
Why should I pay one scintilla of attention to your plans as merely being close to "Big Bird' means your are covered with "Trump Guano" !
Please, peddle this stuff to the GOP/TEA PARTY/KOCH AFFILIATE/FREEDOM CAUCUS and see how far it gets. As far as the Democrats, I agree with them; what is "Twitler" hiding in his unreleased tax returns! Let him show the public his "income" then discuss changes in the system.
Otherwise, take your snake oil, get back in your cart and head to some other "Banana Republic".
Like I should believe these authors? Not one of them is smart enough to empty a trash can and not spill every bit of trash on themselves.
"Steve Forbes, Larry Kudlow, Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore"?
Ha. Hahaha. Hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahaaha.
Kudlow = yelling head on CNBC. No real economic credentials. Laffer = famous for a faulty diagram once drawn on a napkin. Forbes = what happened to the flat tax? Oh, that's right, it's a huge cut for billionaires made up for by taxing the working poor. Moore = cut off from publishing in the KC Star after much mis-information in previous pieces. To top it of, they source Kevin "Dow 36,000" Hassett.
Why does the NYT publish something from this group? There is nothing credible about any of them.
As for the substance: so you want to do unpaid for tax cuts and unpaid for spending - I thought the national debt was the worst thing in history? Apparently, increasing future deficits is only a problem when there is a Democratic President - got it. Also, is this supposed to be a piece on the fundamentals or the politics of tax reform? For "super serious economists," you seem very concerned with losing potential donors from big business groups and the optics of the day on which it gets signed.
Ha. Hahaha. Hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahaaha.
Kudlow = yelling head on CNBC. No real economic credentials. Laffer = famous for a faulty diagram once drawn on a napkin. Forbes = what happened to the flat tax? Oh, that's right, it's a huge cut for billionaires made up for by taxing the working poor. Moore = cut off from publishing in the KC Star after much mis-information in previous pieces. To top it of, they source Kevin "Dow 36,000" Hassett.
Why does the NYT publish something from this group? There is nothing credible about any of them.
As for the substance: so you want to do unpaid for tax cuts and unpaid for spending - I thought the national debt was the worst thing in history? Apparently, increasing future deficits is only a problem when there is a Democratic President - got it. Also, is this supposed to be a piece on the fundamentals or the politics of tax reform? For "super serious economists," you seem very concerned with losing potential donors from big business groups and the optics of the day on which it gets signed.
1
Even grumpy old men should get their time at the microphone, once-in-a-while. NY Times you’re fulfilling your duty in that regard.
Often the pronouncement the old guy is good for a laugh. No exception here. In this case, it’s the same rubbish offered by these hucksters for the last 40 years. It’s just a little more tired and laughable now.
Don't take it seriously. Enjoy the laugh.
Often the pronouncement the old guy is good for a laugh. No exception here. In this case, it’s the same rubbish offered by these hucksters for the last 40 years. It’s just a little more tired and laughable now.
Don't take it seriously. Enjoy the laugh.
Pure hogwash, flat out lies!
Phony Republican so-called tax reform is taking this country down the drain. Republicans somehow think that destroying American institutions benefiting all of us will improve their lot. Forget about infrastructure, from highways to internet service. then there is science, healthcare and most importantly public education.
Reading something like this how can we not call these people stupid? They are simply stupid. Stupid is as stupid does. The starve the beast mentality is the greatest threat to American prosperity.
Phony Republican so-called tax reform is taking this country down the drain. Republicans somehow think that destroying American institutions benefiting all of us will improve their lot. Forget about infrastructure, from highways to internet service. then there is science, healthcare and most importantly public education.
Reading something like this how can we not call these people stupid? They are simply stupid. Stupid is as stupid does. The starve the beast mentality is the greatest threat to American prosperity.
What a bunch of claptrap.
“The Republicans tried to fix the trillion-dollar health insurance market instead of …repealing Obamacare.” Repeal and then what – back to the scary days of no insurance for all the humans with a preexisting condition?
“Full expensing of new factories, equipment and machinery will jump-start business investment.” Even my cloudy crystal ball knows this is hogwash.
“Repatriation of foreign profits … could attract more than $2 trillion to these shores”. Or, you know, maybe not.
“A study by the Tax Foundation and Kevin A. Hassett, then at the American Enterprise Institute”. Ugh, the same right leaning “conservative” think tank folks that defend DeVos and Gottlieb?
“Private financing for projects like toll roads and energy drilling”. So the wealthy can control the assets, yes, we get it.
“The additional increase in real wages could be nearly 10 percent over the next decade” Could be, or you know, maybe not.
“The best way to bring jobs back to America is to simply lower tax rates now while rolling back anti-jobs regulations, such as rules that inhibit American energy production.” Oh please, that tired old song?
“August 13…President Reagan…beloved ranch.” Oh, sure. Cover the lens of clarity and insight with the Vaseline of a talismanic date and Pavlovian chant of Reagan Reagan Reagan and everyone will look back to a gauzy time in the past when all was right with the world.
The “Committee to Unleash Prosperity”? Please.
“The Republicans tried to fix the trillion-dollar health insurance market instead of …repealing Obamacare.” Repeal and then what – back to the scary days of no insurance for all the humans with a preexisting condition?
“Full expensing of new factories, equipment and machinery will jump-start business investment.” Even my cloudy crystal ball knows this is hogwash.
“Repatriation of foreign profits … could attract more than $2 trillion to these shores”. Or, you know, maybe not.
“A study by the Tax Foundation and Kevin A. Hassett, then at the American Enterprise Institute”. Ugh, the same right leaning “conservative” think tank folks that defend DeVos and Gottlieb?
“Private financing for projects like toll roads and energy drilling”. So the wealthy can control the assets, yes, we get it.
“The additional increase in real wages could be nearly 10 percent over the next decade” Could be, or you know, maybe not.
“The best way to bring jobs back to America is to simply lower tax rates now while rolling back anti-jobs regulations, such as rules that inhibit American energy production.” Oh please, that tired old song?
“August 13…President Reagan…beloved ranch.” Oh, sure. Cover the lens of clarity and insight with the Vaseline of a talismanic date and Pavlovian chant of Reagan Reagan Reagan and everyone will look back to a gauzy time in the past when all was right with the world.
The “Committee to Unleash Prosperity”? Please.
Forbes, Kudlow. Laffer & Moore...could you find any more unqualified people to be proposing a tax Plan?
More swill from the people thatare have brought this nation to its knees already. No thank you.
These zanies lost me at the 'republicans should have concentrated on taking away medical care for millions' mark.
The 1981 tax cuts led to a period of prosperity? Really? I graduated college in 1983....right during the worst recession before the Great Recession of 2008. Where exactly were these four people living during 1983? In 1984, unemployment was still at record levels. And that lovely bull market of the late 80's? Who benefited from that? The middle class? Those struggling to recover from the early 1980's? Guess again. Apparently it was those four and their friends. Congrats. The rest of us? Not so much.
More "trickle down" proposals....except what trickles down isn't more and better jobs, it's yellow and it's wet. It's more of the same that has allowed the rich to get filthy rich while the rest of us have to tug our forelocks to get a raise or a job. This is nothing but economic snake-oil. Corporate income taxes in my state are less than half what individuals pay. Meanwhile, the poor and middle classes are burdened with more (auto repairs, movie tickets, etc.)and higher sales taxes to make up the difference. Capital gains are still taxed at far less than sweat-earned income. Do you think we're morons? Apparently so.
What a deluge of right-wing partisan "assumptions" espoused and defended by Trump supporters! What else would you expect.
Conservative studies show that "trickle-down" will work whereas reality has shown differently. They assume that the economy still works as it did in the Kennedy era. What a joke! Today it's all about the corporate bottom line and shareholder profits, the common good be damned. Wow!
Conservative studies show that "trickle-down" will work whereas reality has shown differently. They assume that the economy still works as it did in the Kennedy era. What a joke! Today it's all about the corporate bottom line and shareholder profits, the common good be damned. Wow!
========
Saw the byline: Forbes, Kudlow, and Laffer!
LOL!
So, Trump dug up these discredited clowns to write his tax plan... no wonder it makes so little sense!
These guys are the masters of economic poppy-cock (anyone remember the Laffer curve?) -- their primary purpose is to further enrich the 1%.
They are about as credible on economic and social policy matters as Paul Ryan is!
That is, not credible at all!
=====
Saw the byline: Forbes, Kudlow, and Laffer!
LOL!
So, Trump dug up these discredited clowns to write his tax plan... no wonder it makes so little sense!
These guys are the masters of economic poppy-cock (anyone remember the Laffer curve?) -- their primary purpose is to further enrich the 1%.
They are about as credible on economic and social policy matters as Paul Ryan is!
That is, not credible at all!
=====
Any piece with Laffer as one of the authors is immediately suspect. Supply side (Kansas, anyone?) and the "Laffer curve" doesn't work. We've done the lab and it is not how reality works. Add to that the mythology about the US tax rate on businesses and you know you're in Right Wing LaLa Land. Finish with the "User Pays" bunk which is just more of the privatize profits; socialize risks we've seen for decades and you have a trifecta of GOP economic dreck.
Great, half the staff at Fox Business Channel are now trying to write tax law. That flushing sound you hear is populism going down the toilet.
Wow, talk about Pie-In-The-Sky proposals, and IF they are right about tax cuts for business spurring the economy......we already KNOW what happens, they bank the money. And the last tax 'holiday' for repatriated funds didn't work either......they banked the money. These guys have been bleating this crap for years, it didn't work before, it won't work now. Allowing 'business' to run roughshod over our economy and workers and government regulations that protect us is no way to run a country.
Same old trickle down crap. It may help the middle class, but it will help the wealthy much more. It's never worked the way these guys predict. It's purpose is to keep the power of capital where it is, in the hands of the top 1%.
We want a tax code that directly puts more money into the hands of the 99% who can spend it and stimulate the economy. That will push money up into businesses who will earn higher volumes of profits from higher volume of sales not from lower taxes. They will then hire more people to serve the demand, generating more purchasing power and more sales and more profits. That purchasing power can also stimulate new businesses with new products and services and more competition for better products and services at accessible prices. That way everyone wins.
But trickle down theorists do not want everyone to win. They want the already rich to win more and everyone else to lose more so that the power of capital is ever more centralized with the very rich. It's all neo-feudalism of which we should be very opposed.
We want a tax code that directly puts more money into the hands of the 99% who can spend it and stimulate the economy. That will push money up into businesses who will earn higher volumes of profits from higher volume of sales not from lower taxes. They will then hire more people to serve the demand, generating more purchasing power and more sales and more profits. That purchasing power can also stimulate new businesses with new products and services and more competition for better products and services at accessible prices. That way everyone wins.
But trickle down theorists do not want everyone to win. They want the already rich to win more and everyone else to lose more so that the power of capital is ever more centralized with the very rich. It's all neo-feudalism of which we should be very opposed.
One can expect nothing better from this quartet of economic idiots.
The case for trickle down economics restated. These bozos have no clue and certainly are not interested in learning from history. Cut taxes on repatriated profits and what do you get? Stock repurchase programs not higher wages. I'd Democrats get sucked into this scheme they are fools.
Once we grant politicians power over our lives - Republican or Democrat - it takes damned near an Act of God to get them to return it to us. Income Taxes and National Health Care give the government control over the two most important aspects of our lives. It was a violation of the Constitution to do both but too many people were not paying attention or simply too uninformed to care.
All of the authors of this piece are slime. Ghosts coming back to put an even deeper nail in the heart of the American economy, already a deficit-running sideshow in large part to Laffer.
What do they realistically think will happen? A 15% corporate rate? As it is big companies have juet sat on cash since 08. Everybody knows it. The minimum wage, held down so well under Laffer, should be at least double what it now is. How long do they think they can keep pulling this crap on the United States without the country just imploding form within (it already is). When Trump's massive pulling out of money from the federal government really kicks in, these weasels will be sitting back wanting more. i think I speak for a lot of Americans-you already pushed our credit rating down, have given us essentially one big plantation economy for the former middle class. You will burn in hell for this one, as you count your millions you are hoarding at home.
What do they realistically think will happen? A 15% corporate rate? As it is big companies have juet sat on cash since 08. Everybody knows it. The minimum wage, held down so well under Laffer, should be at least double what it now is. How long do they think they can keep pulling this crap on the United States without the country just imploding form within (it already is). When Trump's massive pulling out of money from the federal government really kicks in, these weasels will be sitting back wanting more. i think I speak for a lot of Americans-you already pushed our credit rating down, have given us essentially one big plantation economy for the former middle class. You will burn in hell for this one, as you count your millions you are hoarding at home.
No matter what is suggested businesses or their lobbyists will object. Some big important group won't like the plan and will use every means possible to scuttle it. And seeing who wrote this article I can say that their ideas have no basis in reality.
The truth is that American corporations spend tons of money on armies of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists to avoid paying all but the most minimal taxes while trying for government handouts called corporate welfare. They overpay their CEOs and deliberately underpay their employees. They practice every sort of discrimination possible. They don't care about the small business owner except as someone to cheat the way they cheat consumers.
If large corporations want to hire American workers, keep American consumers buying, have a world class infrastructure in place they need to pay their fair share and that includes the taxes that allow states, counties, cities, and villages to clean up their mess, have clean water, decent schools, roads that are in good repair, bridges, ports, airports, etc., that are in good repair. When the GOP rails against a decent social safety net for citizens we should ask them why they give our large corporations the safety net they deny us. The answer isn't that corporations are people. Follow the money.
The truth is that American corporations spend tons of money on armies of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists to avoid paying all but the most minimal taxes while trying for government handouts called corporate welfare. They overpay their CEOs and deliberately underpay their employees. They practice every sort of discrimination possible. They don't care about the small business owner except as someone to cheat the way they cheat consumers.
If large corporations want to hire American workers, keep American consumers buying, have a world class infrastructure in place they need to pay their fair share and that includes the taxes that allow states, counties, cities, and villages to clean up their mess, have clean water, decent schools, roads that are in good repair, bridges, ports, airports, etc., that are in good repair. When the GOP rails against a decent social safety net for citizens we should ask them why they give our large corporations the safety net they deny us. The answer isn't that corporations are people. Follow the money.
1
Sounds like a great way to enrich the already filthy rich and institute trickle down economics again. (Been there, done that, and it failed.)
134
Yes. Failed! Bigly!!
Before Arthur Laffer's economic policy influenced the Reagan administration, national debt was less than $1 trillion. They tripled it. Dick Cheney took this as proof that "deficits don't matter." Unless, of course, a Democratic administration inherits the fiscal mess created by Republican voodoo economics.
Before Arthur Laffer's economic policy influenced the Reagan administration, inequality in the USA was far less than it is today. Why would anyone hope to hear recommendations in the common interest from these people.
Of course they want more toll roads. To those who ride chauffeured, a toll is a mere trifle. To the rest of us, it's an onerous and inefficient use tax, a regressive belt-tightener. And for the investment class, the toll road is a monopoly that keeps on giving, widening that wealth gap.
Before Arthur Laffer's economic policy influenced the Reagan administration, inequality in the USA was far less than it is today. Why would anyone hope to hear recommendations in the common interest from these people.
Of course they want more toll roads. To those who ride chauffeured, a toll is a mere trifle. To the rest of us, it's an onerous and inefficient use tax, a regressive belt-tightener. And for the investment class, the toll road is a monopoly that keeps on giving, widening that wealth gap.
174
How about this.......if corps play financial shell games with offshore profits, their managers are sent to jail. Live in this country, pay taxes in this country....america first.
This just in! Conservatives now believe in deficits! It just takes an election to change their hypocritical minds...
3
How did the Bush tax cuts work out? Trickle down doesn't work. Please give us examples of when it has worked? When have you guys been right ??
2
I think when JFK cut taxes from the very high ( top 90%) WWII rates the economy did react well and expanded. This was a unique situation tho...
And the NYTs decides to publish an opinion by Fiscal Conservatives that is filled with lies that only serve as deceptive fiction for public consumption when you exist to serve the public not the powerful? How does this kind of journalism rebuild public faith in your publication after the media coverage debacle of the 2017 elections?
1
Shame on the NYTimes for giving these four fools space to promote their give-to-the-wealthiest, soak-everyone-else economic policies.
Five years ago, Kansas tried this nonsense. It's been a disaster: A state left with some of the worst job growth in the country (Professor Menzie Chinn at the University of Wisconsin has the analysis: http://econbrowser.com/archives/2017/04/kansas-employment-rises-to-0-3-b... massive budget deficits that have left the state without enough money to maintain its roads or properly fund public education; and a large regressive sales tax increase in 2015.
The NYTimes owes its readers an apology for giving a forum to these fools and their nonsense.
Five years ago, Kansas tried this nonsense. It's been a disaster: A state left with some of the worst job growth in the country (Professor Menzie Chinn at the University of Wisconsin has the analysis: http://econbrowser.com/archives/2017/04/kansas-employment-rises-to-0-3-b... massive budget deficits that have left the state without enough money to maintain its roads or properly fund public education; and a large regressive sales tax increase in 2015.
The NYTimes owes its readers an apology for giving a forum to these fools and their nonsense.
3
Same old story - private enrichment at public expense
1
"We advised President Trump during his election campaign ..."
If you ever thought that candidate Trump would care about being a responsible leader than the Laffer Curve is only the second dumbest idea for you to support.
If you ever thought that candidate Trump would care about being a responsible leader than the Laffer Curve is only the second dumbest idea for you to support.
"As part of this bill, we should create a fund dedicated to rebuilding America’s roads, highways, airports and pipelines, and modernizing the electric grid and broadband access — financed through the tax money raised from repatriation of foreign profits."
I suppose high speed passenger rail would be too socialist for you guys?
I suppose high speed passenger rail would be too socialist for you guys?
1
Why, oh why, would the Times give space to these clowns to write about tax reform? Laffer is a joke as an economist.
1
Exempt the rich, tax the middle classes and poor!
Simple!
Simple!
1
Why the NYT would give any semblance of legitimacy to this naked example of pure regression masked in buzzwords is beyond me. Even less, I have to wonder why any thinking person or non-Republican (those terms seem synonymous these days) would consider it for a nanosecond.
The Trump presidency is nothing but a cash cow for him, his family and his friends.
2
Sorry grifters, this won't wash. Forget about it and start over.
Whatever your tax scheme, you guys fail to miss the larger point that the Republican party is so morally bankrupt that they fostered the installation of an ignorant treasonous buffoon to the presidency.
Are you so delusional that you think the tax code is of any importance at this point? There is a struggle on for the very survival of the country.
Are you so delusional that you think the tax code is of any importance at this point? There is a struggle on for the very survival of the country.
2
What a nonsense. The very people advertising tax cuts write in the same article that previous Bush tax cuts didn't produce wage growth by saying "...which would reverse 15 years of income stagnation for the working class in America". Why did we have income stagnation for the last 15 years if Bush tax cuts expired only a few years ago??? Because it all went to corporate profits and increases EPS. They really do think that the voters are stupid and treat them as such.
1
Positive reaction to your plan from me - a strong anti-Trump voter. KISS, what it stand for is Keep It Simple, Stupid. And Stupid he is, but we need the lower tax rate and relief for American Companies who see product overseas (why are we not encouraging them to sell overseas?)
The United States is one of only six industrialized nations (of 34 OECD members) that taxes domestic corporations on a worldwide basis. In the past fifteen years, thirteen OECD countries have moved to a territorial system that exempts all or most of active foreign earned income from domestic taxation.[4]
[4] PricewaterhouseCoopers, Evolution of Territorial Tax Systems in the OECD, prepared for the Technology CEO Council (Apr. 2, 2013), http://www.techceocouncil.org/clientuploads/reports/Report%20on%20Territ....
The United States is one of only six industrialized nations (of 34 OECD members) that taxes domestic corporations on a worldwide basis. In the past fifteen years, thirteen OECD countries have moved to a territorial system that exempts all or most of active foreign earned income from domestic taxation.[4]
[4] PricewaterhouseCoopers, Evolution of Territorial Tax Systems in the OECD, prepared for the Technology CEO Council (Apr. 2, 2013), http://www.techceocouncil.org/clientuploads/reports/Report%20on%20Territ....
Supply-side "economists" should be regarded with the same disdain as flat earth truthers and anti-vaccine lunatics.
It. Doesn't. Work.
You've conned this nation for 37 years too many. The people have pulled back the curtain and exposed you for the greedy, lying weasels that you are. History will not look on you kindly.
It. Doesn't. Work.
You've conned this nation for 37 years too many. The people have pulled back the curtain and exposed you for the greedy, lying weasels that you are. History will not look on you kindly.
2
Ah yes. Trickle down economics is back in vogue.
Why not? It's worked so well in Kansas.
Why not? It's worked so well in Kansas.
"One sure lesson from the health care setback is the old admonition “Keep it simple, stupid.” The Republicans tried to fix the trillion-dollar health insurance market instead of keeping the focus on repealing Obamacare." With that statement all credibility is lost. Do you get rid of your roof when you can't afford to fix it? Let's just cut taxes and forget about the bottom line. Let's just think of one thing at a time and kick that can down the road one more time.
1
Short-sighted and shamelessly self-serving. How can the authors believe that the Democrats in Congress will be so stupid to agree to a "low" rate on repatriations against the promise of a hypothetical infrastructure fund to be financed precisely by these repatriation.
2
A very impressive bunch of very well written comments by very well informed commenters here, and all knocked out quickly in respnse to the op/ed.
For some reason the New York Times published a column written by a collaboration of known charlatans wearing rich guy blinders. If the NYT wants to publish nonsense like this maybe simultaneously running a piece by actual economists who actually know what they are writing about and do not have a pro one percent agenda would be a good idea.
But way to go, readers. And wake up, editors.
For some reason the New York Times published a column written by a collaboration of known charlatans wearing rich guy blinders. If the NYT wants to publish nonsense like this maybe simultaneously running a piece by actual economists who actually know what they are writing about and do not have a pro one percent agenda would be a good idea.
But way to go, readers. And wake up, editors.
3
Lol. See: Kansas.
1
Anyone who takes these clowns seriously needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
1
36 years of the migration of wealth to the top and the answer is even more wealth to the top. A crime against America dressed up as free market virtue.
178
Larry Kudlow? Ha! That's all I need to know.
4
Steve Forbes may even be worse.
Each of these four men know that their proposal relies on nonsensical claims.
Each of these four men know that their proposal relies on nonsensical claims.
1
If the authors were paying close attention to what's going on around them these days, they would know that they're not going to peel away one single Democratic vote until Donald Trump releases his tax returns. Until we know how tax reform benefits the President, we don't really care about how you gentlemen think it might benefit us.
1
NO RELEASE: NO REFORM!!
1
Once again, the NYT gives a voice to the right wing. I'm sure the WSJ Is running an op-ed by liberal economists like Dean Baker right now... Oh, wait, no they aren't and no they never will.
I did not know I had signed up for the Comics as well as the Editorial/Opinion pages.
2
Arthur "Supply Side" Laffer? Wow!!! I'm surprised he has the time for an advice column. I thought he was completely busy helping Sam Brownback raise Kansas to new heights of economic prosperity.
1
Can't help but wonder if this piece is just a bit of raw meat tossed by the NYT to its commentariat to gnaw at. I'm pretty sure, without looking, that no comments supporting it will appear as a NYT Pick even if one could be found.
For my part, the low tax on repatriated earnings makes a good deal of sense, as does immediate expensing of capital investment. Corporate tax rates are of less importance since they are currently mostly avoided or reduced in effect through various loopholes.
For my part, the low tax on repatriated earnings makes a good deal of sense, as does immediate expensing of capital investment. Corporate tax rates are of less importance since they are currently mostly avoided or reduced in effect through various loopholes.
1
Every "solution" Rep. put forth requires enriching themselves first, last and always.
Even to "give" Dems infrastructure to "make them happy" they are enriching themselves.
Their greed renders them incapable of simply doing the right thing, for the sake of doing the right thing.
Even to "give" Dems infrastructure to "make them happy" they are enriching themselves.
Their greed renders them incapable of simply doing the right thing, for the sake of doing the right thing.
As a VERY far right libertarian, I cannot imagine a worse collection of tax authors. Forbes promoted the flat tax -- until it was exposed as a MASSIVE tax increase on the middle class, Golly, progressive tax pay the large subsidy of middle-class taxes, roughly 50% for the "core" ($40k-100k).
Laffer's cuts under Reagan created increased revenues of only $5 billion per year -- after adjusting for the double digit inflation -- chicken feed -- and the ENTIRE gain from capital gains taxes, as the market recovered from a 70% loss, so THOSE gains are not now available.
http://libertyissues.com/quacks.htm
Steve Moore is the very worst. His MaxTax confused Gross and Taxable Income (see for yourself!) thus would have cut taxes for ONLY the top 0.8%! Tinkerbell Economics. (Both links here INCLUDE original source data.)
http://libertyissues.com/maxtax.htm
We do need heavy tax reform, but not by charlatans on my own side of the divide. Like this, published ober 20 years ago (copyrighted):
http://libertyissues.com/taxfed.htm
Laffer's cuts under Reagan created increased revenues of only $5 billion per year -- after adjusting for the double digit inflation -- chicken feed -- and the ENTIRE gain from capital gains taxes, as the market recovered from a 70% loss, so THOSE gains are not now available.
http://libertyissues.com/quacks.htm
Steve Moore is the very worst. His MaxTax confused Gross and Taxable Income (see for yourself!) thus would have cut taxes for ONLY the top 0.8%! Tinkerbell Economics. (Both links here INCLUDE original source data.)
http://libertyissues.com/maxtax.htm
We do need heavy tax reform, but not by charlatans on my own side of the divide. Like this, published ober 20 years ago (copyrighted):
http://libertyissues.com/taxfed.htm
Another tribute to the God of Republicans, Reagan.
News flash: Donald Trump is no Reagan. Trump is intellectually barren and only increased profits at his businesses excites him.
Show us your taxes, Trump!
News flash: Donald Trump is no Reagan. Trump is intellectually barren and only increased profits at his businesses excites him.
Show us your taxes, Trump!
I don't usually agree with these guys, but this makes a lot of sense and I hope the Trump administration is listening. The business community is counting on corporate tax reform, and Trump voters want to see infrastructure and jobs. When we get to individual tax reform, the debates will be very ugly and we can't afford more tax cuts anyway. After all, we still need to increase the funding for Obamacare!
How will a massive tax cut for the rich pay for infrastructure or jobs?
PROPAGANDA! My fellow citizens, please do not buy into this farce! They write, “First, cut the federal corporate and small-business highest tax rate to 15 percent from 35 percent, which is now one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.” Really?? Just do five minutes of research online to find out how many of our corporations pay ZERO in taxes because of all kinds of loopholes that have been put into the taxation laws per the stranglehold that corporate interests have on our government. In 2015, corporations such as United Airlines, GM, Hewlett-Packard, PG&E, and Xerox (to name a few) paid NO taxes. NONE!
And a combination of public and private financing for things like toll roads is a path we don’t want to go down—it will be like doubling our taxes. The government will tax us for infrastructure as usual but we will then get to pay for-profit companies to use that infrastructure (i.e. toll roads) that was largely paid for by the public. Yippee—we will get to pay twice!
Just think about it, big league sports teams routinely threaten to leave various cities unless the “public” agrees to build them a brand new stadium, but do those deals ever involve any of that money being returned over time from the profits? NO, use your head--do not believe this drivel! The people who espouse this garbage really must think that the common man is stupid and can be easily duped.
And a combination of public and private financing for things like toll roads is a path we don’t want to go down—it will be like doubling our taxes. The government will tax us for infrastructure as usual but we will then get to pay for-profit companies to use that infrastructure (i.e. toll roads) that was largely paid for by the public. Yippee—we will get to pay twice!
Just think about it, big league sports teams routinely threaten to leave various cities unless the “public” agrees to build them a brand new stadium, but do those deals ever involve any of that money being returned over time from the profits? NO, use your head--do not believe this drivel! The people who espouse this garbage really must think that the common man is stupid and can be easily duped.
More tax cuts for the leisure class?
Don't make us Laffer.
Don't make us Laffer.
1
Private infrastructure projects are a mark of a poor nation and corrupt nation.
You are bestowing too much credit on this administration. And more importantly too much intelligence !!
“Keep it simple, stupid.”…. “The Republicans tried to fix the trillion-dollar health insurance market instead of keeping the focus on repealing Obamacare.”
The above is about as far as I got in your article. So the Republicans should have just repealed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), then with all the savings from not making available health care insurance to those in most need, introduce Tax Reform legislation. “Honest to God” you people have no hearts or souls.
I’m too angry to write much more, but will leave you with this thought. Balance in your op-ed would be more helpful. This is Supply Side economics, why not compare it to Demand Side also. Below are some Demand Side results from President Clinton's years in office.
“..oversaw a very robust economy during his tenure.....raised taxes on higher income taxpayers....... and cut defense spending.....helped bring the federal budget into surplus....Debt...fell relative to GDP throughout his two terms, from 47.8% in 1993 to 31.4% in 2001...”
The above is about as far as I got in your article. So the Republicans should have just repealed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), then with all the savings from not making available health care insurance to those in most need, introduce Tax Reform legislation. “Honest to God” you people have no hearts or souls.
I’m too angry to write much more, but will leave you with this thought. Balance in your op-ed would be more helpful. This is Supply Side economics, why not compare it to Demand Side also. Below are some Demand Side results from President Clinton's years in office.
“..oversaw a very robust economy during his tenure.....raised taxes on higher income taxpayers....... and cut defense spending.....helped bring the federal budget into surplus....Debt...fell relative to GDP throughout his two terms, from 47.8% in 1993 to 31.4% in 2001...”
1
In the free exchange of ideas, there's always room for bad ones. Here, the fox writes the house rules for the chickens.
Would the authors of this article and proposed bill provide the NYT with their tax returns---just curious how their bill would affect their tax situation---just curious.
Keep it simple, stupid...the only valid advice in the article, but which does not describe their proposals put forward. No matter how you write the code, the large, publically-traded corporations will pay millions to their attorneys and accountants to avoid millions in tax payment. Smaller businesses and individuals cannot spend to save at that rate, so they choke on the tax code. Stop using the tax code to write policy and provide welfare. Until there is a supply network domestically that US businesses can "buy American" don't tax my imported products. Tax my business on revenue, not income, so it becomes a cost of doing business and I don't have to put everything I do in as a business expense. Don't tax income from wages or income from my business, tax capital gains, interest and dividends, so I don't need to worry about losing my mortgage exemption. Make all US government debt instruments tax-free to me, so that the bonds we issue to pay for infrastructure I can buy, support the projects and have income so the Chinese and Europeans don't have to own all our debt.
Turns out, spending money you don't have is totally cool with conservatives as long as they get their corporate tax break. Reagan and Kennedy unleashed two long periods of prosperity because they cut taxes which blew up the deficit. Stop trying to phrase everything so it fits your narrative.
First things first.
Have your born to privilege, draft dodging bankruptcy expert and electoral president cough up his tax returns then maybe, just maybe, we'll consider looking at whether or not other born to privilege trust fund whiners like mr. forbes were born into enough free money.
Have your born to privilege, draft dodging bankruptcy expert and electoral president cough up his tax returns then maybe, just maybe, we'll consider looking at whether or not other born to privilege trust fund whiners like mr. forbes were born into enough free money.
"The Republicans tried to fix the trillion-dollar health insurance market instead of keeping the focus on repealing Obamacare."
Keeping the focus on repealing Obamacare?! Are the authors of this article insane?
They write that as if it were an off-hand remark on how to correctly bake a cake.
Attention high-brow republicans! Repealing Obamacare will throw MILLIONS of people off of health insurance. That will swell the ranks of those getting everyday medical care at emergency rooms. That, in turn, will increase the amount of unpaid care at said hospitals, which will cause these hospitals to lose money. And what about those who are bankrupted because they can't afford the treatments for catastrophic health problems with crummy insurance - or no insurance at all?
Were you guys even paying attention to the crisis of unaffordable health insurance before the ACA? Sometimes I think republican brains are totally occupied with a broken record repeating the same, old tired policies over and over, with no regard for facts or reality. Policies that don't work and hurt people.
Republicans! Please STOP being cold-hearted and uncaring of those not as well-off as you!
Keeping the focus on repealing Obamacare?! Are the authors of this article insane?
They write that as if it were an off-hand remark on how to correctly bake a cake.
Attention high-brow republicans! Repealing Obamacare will throw MILLIONS of people off of health insurance. That will swell the ranks of those getting everyday medical care at emergency rooms. That, in turn, will increase the amount of unpaid care at said hospitals, which will cause these hospitals to lose money. And what about those who are bankrupted because they can't afford the treatments for catastrophic health problems with crummy insurance - or no insurance at all?
Were you guys even paying attention to the crisis of unaffordable health insurance before the ACA? Sometimes I think republican brains are totally occupied with a broken record repeating the same, old tired policies over and over, with no regard for facts or reality. Policies that don't work and hurt people.
Republicans! Please STOP being cold-hearted and uncaring of those not as well-off as you!
No doubt Steve Forbes wants to know why everyone didn't have the good sense to be the child of an exceedingly wealthy publisher.
Who gives these oligarchs and paid nobodies in the case of Stephen Moore this forum to spew their nonsense about privatizing this wonderful country and treating it like their own private kleptocracy? In the coming age of progressive populism this garbage these people are selling is a non-starter. Make America Great Again, tax the people with the money like they did in the 50's and spread the wealth around like they did in the 50's. Letting these elitists push for a kleptocratic policy in a democracy is anti American. Shame on the New York Times for giving greed in the form of policy a forum.
One word rebuttal: Kansas.
3
The NYT editors fell short of adequate in formatting the text of this piece. I would highly recommend a "strikethrough" font, to help indicate that everything in this piece is spin, myth, and "alternative" facts.
Let's not hide the fact that eight years of trying to make Obama fail is being "trumped" by repeated insult and injury to American workers. These authors are the morally corrupt "intellectual elites" that the Right is so fond of charging our Novel laureates in economics.
Let's not hide the fact that eight years of trying to make Obama fail is being "trumped" by repeated insult and injury to American workers. These authors are the morally corrupt "intellectual elites" that the Right is so fond of charging our Novel laureates in economics.
Isn't this the same brain trust that was advising governor Brownback in the great state of Kansas? How did that work out?
Kansas implemented these guys' ideas to catastrophic, yet predictable results.
The Laffer curve is still not funny. The model doesn't work...
The simplification of business taxes is important. I'd like a rider that penalizes companies for buybacks, but that will never happen. I'd rather see higher dividends which ends the fiction that the management of the company is doing something great to boost the stock price (or deserve bonuses). Dividends put more of the money immediately in the hands of those who can spend it or make other investment decisions.
As for the carbon tax it's a great and effective idea. Forbes probably y knows this but can't bring himself to admit it since it conflicts with his beliefs. And, finally, letting the private market make too many investment or project decisions on infrastructure is nonsensical. That is just not how it works. We need to bit the bullet and end path dependence on automobiles to improve QoL for all.
As for the carbon tax it's a great and effective idea. Forbes probably y knows this but can't bring himself to admit it since it conflicts with his beliefs. And, finally, letting the private market make too many investment or project decisions on infrastructure is nonsensical. That is just not how it works. We need to bit the bullet and end path dependence on automobiles to improve QoL for all.
I have a distinct memory of multiple Reagan recessions, which made it very difficult for me to get ahead as a young person starting out in the 1980's. That tax cut he signed t his beloved ranch did not unleash a long period of American prosperity, and more than the disastrous Bush tax cuts of 2001. Liars!
A tax plan written by Steve Forbes, Larry Kudlow, Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore? Is this an attempt by the New York Times to cut into the maket share of The Onion?
"Trump bounce"?
The wolves are making suggestions about how to improve conditions in the hen house...... or at least how to improve their their access to it.
The gang that could not shoot straight....ie...2008, deja vu all over again.
After the eco. disaster these guys gave us in 2008, some peer countries would have fired them from their jobs. In some countries they would be put in jail. In countries like China or Russia they might have been executed.
In the good ole USA, we gave them multi million dollar jobs in places like Fox News.
After the eco. disaster these guys gave us in 2008, some peer countries would have fired them from their jobs. In some countries they would be put in jail. In countries like China or Russia they might have been executed.
In the good ole USA, we gave them multi million dollar jobs in places like Fox News.
1
Make payroll taxes progressive. Make payroll taxes progressive. Make payroll taxes progressive.
New personal tax proposal.
Reduce entire form to one 12 Font Form - can be easily be done on-line.
Top third includes demographics - name, address, SS#. telephone, e-mail.
ALL INCOME TREATED EXACTLY THE SAME AND LISTED IN NEXT 3RD:
W2 type income
Dividends
Capital Gains
Other
Rates per person with NO DEDUCTIONS FOR ANYTHING:
<35,000/year - no income tax owed
35-50,000 - 5% tax bracket (currently 48% of population pays no income tax)
50-80,000 - 10% tax bracket
80-125,000 - 15% tax bracket
125-250,000- 20% bracket
250-999,000 - 25% bracket
1M-2M - 30% bracket
>2M - 50% bracket (impacts < .5%, or < 1/200 Americans)
DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reduce entire form to one 12 Font Form - can be easily be done on-line.
Top third includes demographics - name, address, SS#. telephone, e-mail.
ALL INCOME TREATED EXACTLY THE SAME AND LISTED IN NEXT 3RD:
W2 type income
Dividends
Capital Gains
Other
Rates per person with NO DEDUCTIONS FOR ANYTHING:
<35,000/year - no income tax owed
35-50,000 - 5% tax bracket (currently 48% of population pays no income tax)
50-80,000 - 10% tax bracket
80-125,000 - 15% tax bracket
125-250,000- 20% bracket
250-999,000 - 25% bracket
1M-2M - 30% bracket
>2M - 50% bracket (impacts < .5%, or < 1/200 Americans)
DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well lets face it, NY Time readers needed a big laugh. At least this reader got a big laugh, and I needed one. Thanks for the chuckle.
Laffer was hailed as a genius with his supply-side theories at USC when I was there 40 years ago. Reagan used them to run up U.S. debt by $2 trillion.
What's happened to middle-class wealth drained in the interim? It has indeed "trickled down" - not into the U.S. economy, but into trust funds and offshore bank accounts of the wealthiest Americans.
What's happened to middle-class wealth drained in the interim? It has indeed "trickled down" - not into the U.S. economy, but into trust funds and offshore bank accounts of the wealthiest Americans.
Just like Kuhn pointed out in the "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" you gentlemen are suggesting to keep a tax code that is complication on top of complication in the name of saving the current tax paradigm.
You do not get it is in fact time for a new paradigm.
Repeal all income taxes. Replace with a three tier national sales tax. The infrastructure for collection exists in most states, the tiers would make it progressive so the rich pay a larger percentage than the poor, and everything would be taxed with no exceptions.
Let people decide about investments, not governments trying to micro-manage such decisions. Macro constraints like a top tier for electricity from oil and the low for electricity from solar would do fine.
The three tier national sales tax would be collected without any forms, no need for the IRS, and it would cover all stages of the economic process. If you fig ore out of the ground and sell it to a steel mill, it is taxes. When the steel moves to a auto plant, it is taxed, when the car is sold, it is taxed, when the car is worked on the labor is taxed.
This model is exactly what mama used to say about watching the pennies and the dollars will follow.
The thing about such a plan is that everyone would know exactly what taxes will be. No special interests could manipulate the tax code. Also, privacy would be assured as nobody would be keeping tack of your economic life.
This is keeping it Simple and Stupid.
You do not get it is in fact time for a new paradigm.
Repeal all income taxes. Replace with a three tier national sales tax. The infrastructure for collection exists in most states, the tiers would make it progressive so the rich pay a larger percentage than the poor, and everything would be taxed with no exceptions.
Let people decide about investments, not governments trying to micro-manage such decisions. Macro constraints like a top tier for electricity from oil and the low for electricity from solar would do fine.
The three tier national sales tax would be collected without any forms, no need for the IRS, and it would cover all stages of the economic process. If you fig ore out of the ground and sell it to a steel mill, it is taxes. When the steel moves to a auto plant, it is taxed, when the car is sold, it is taxed, when the car is worked on the labor is taxed.
This model is exactly what mama used to say about watching the pennies and the dollars will follow.
The thing about such a plan is that everyone would know exactly what taxes will be. No special interests could manipulate the tax code. Also, privacy would be assured as nobody would be keeping tack of your economic life.
This is keeping it Simple and Stupid.
How many more times do these guys need to be proven wrong about their economic theory before the NYT will finally assign them to the dust bin they belong in?
These four guys might take a hint about reality from this past week's interview with Brazil's Dilma Rouseff:
"One thing I would not have done is approve extensive tax cuts. I did that based on the belief that companies would then invest more and generate more jobs. But that was not what happened: The companies increased their profits without investing more."
"One thing I would not have done is approve extensive tax cuts. I did that based on the belief that companies would then invest more and generate more jobs. But that was not what happened: The companies increased their profits without investing more."
183
'we would oppose any Fannie Mae-type financing structure for projects that would put taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions in potential losses.'
I presume this means you'd rather shift the 'burden' of these potential losses to 'private financiers' who are only thinking of financing this for the good of the country and to avoid putting citizens at financial risk. We should all be thankful for the generosity of private financiers.
Or am I missing something?
I presume this means you'd rather shift the 'burden' of these potential losses to 'private financiers' who are only thinking of financing this for the good of the country and to avoid putting citizens at financial risk. We should all be thankful for the generosity of private financiers.
Or am I missing something?
5
higher profits won't translate into more jobs or higher wages. Other countries have lower income tax because they also have Value Added Taxes and higher personal tax rates. I think it would be a good idea to eliminate the SS ceiling on wages why stopping at $100k and treat carried interest as wages not investment income.
10
I would prefer a slightly higher corporate tax with a 100% or even higher R&D tax credit. This will drive investment in innovation which is risky. If 80% of high risk projects fail this could be looked at as a 20% tax credit.
1
Surprise, surprise. Four spokesmen for right wing, corporation-funded think tanks claim the road to prosperity is paved by lowering the corporate tax rate. And to prove their claim, they cite the evidence generated by the research done by--what else?--right wing, corporation-funded think tanks.
15
The corporate tax rate now stands at 35%, 39% when you include state tax rates. That's pretty steep when you are competing with other countries who's tax rate is on the average of under 30%. We've got to bring that down so that we can attract investment into the U.S.
the proposals advocated here would simply increase the rate at which wealth inequality is growing.
8
They lost me with "deduct the full cost of their capital purchases." The tax system should raise money for government operations by taxing all income. Period. All of what they call "tax relief" amounts to payouts negotiated by powerful special interest. I am ok with payouts to special interests. However, such payouts should be transparent, recognized for what they are, and each debated openly by Congress on the merits. If we all agree that some special interest deserves to be funded, for whatever reason, then cut them a check. It would all be more honest.
3
The only infrastructure plan they have is toll roads. Why? Because construction companies benefit and large institutions who finance the project. Who benefits the wealthy. This program won't work for air traffic airports water electric grid The average American will not benefit Demand for goods and services create jobs not tax cuts
2
Allowing businesses to immediately deduct the full cost of their capital purchases, is a powerful incentive to add more automation to existing or planned factories and large businesses.
Robots don't incur costs of payroll taxes, healthcare coverage; which is a driver for increasing automation, as it stands today.
Robots don't incur costs of payroll taxes, healthcare coverage; which is a driver for increasing automation, as it stands today.
4
People will notice that all the reduction goes to business and not to individuals. Nothing. And, once that's done, business loses much of the incentive to press for further reductions. It's a beautiful deal, but for whom? If you don't take care of individuals, where is the general public going to get the additional money to purchase what encourages companies to expand.
And why is that better than raising taxes to fund infrastructure projects that will raise profits producing more jobs, plus providing jobs on infrastructure.
It also ignores what many companies will do with increased profits without creating more jobs. They often buy back stock which raises its share price and lets all those nice CEO options kick in. They often buy their competitors, which increases their market clout while reducing the total number employed. They often use cash to automate and reduce their largest expense - namely employee wages and benefits.
In answer to the question, why are Republicans making tax reform so hard, the answer is because the public doesn't like to be left out when there's a big give-away being hyped. And there's even less support for a border adjustment tax, which is really just a sales tax masqueraded as an "adjustment".
And why is that better than raising taxes to fund infrastructure projects that will raise profits producing more jobs, plus providing jobs on infrastructure.
It also ignores what many companies will do with increased profits without creating more jobs. They often buy back stock which raises its share price and lets all those nice CEO options kick in. They often buy their competitors, which increases their market clout while reducing the total number employed. They often use cash to automate and reduce their largest expense - namely employee wages and benefits.
In answer to the question, why are Republicans making tax reform so hard, the answer is because the public doesn't like to be left out when there's a big give-away being hyped. And there's even less support for a border adjustment tax, which is really just a sales tax masqueraded as an "adjustment".
142
So, these geniuses want to reduce our "onerous" corporate tax rate to 15%? Great. But, if, and only if, ALL corporate tax deductions are eliminated first. Earn a dollar; pay 15 cents tax. Period.
Repatriate foreign profits? Fine. But, if, and only if, the money is NOT used for stock buybacks.
And, as these gentlemen are so nostalgic for the Reagan and Kennedy eras'; how about requiring executive pay be reduced to the same multiple to the average worker, as in those halcyon days?
Repatriate foreign profits? Fine. But, if, and only if, the money is NOT used for stock buybacks.
And, as these gentlemen are so nostalgic for the Reagan and Kennedy eras'; how about requiring executive pay be reduced to the same multiple to the average worker, as in those halcyon days?
4
IF we could create a tax policy designed to continuously maximize US employment and benefit the working class, we could solve a number of problems. The theories posited by this group of writers are old and tired and seemingly miss the mark of such a tax policy.
Providing a expanded deduction (say 125% instead of 100%) for W-2 wages/benefits paid to employees, say up to $200,000, would be an incentive for employers to hire people instead of purchasing cheaper goods outside the country. Capping deductions at $1,000,000 per individual would also be beneficial. Similarly, providing an annually expanding tax credit to individuals who have not drawn unemployment benefits incentivizes wage earners to remain employed.
Rebalancing the rates including such measures will, of course, be necessary. But let's be honest, which the authors seem not to be, the rate is only one of the many significant components of any tax structure.
Providing a expanded deduction (say 125% instead of 100%) for W-2 wages/benefits paid to employees, say up to $200,000, would be an incentive for employers to hire people instead of purchasing cheaper goods outside the country. Capping deductions at $1,000,000 per individual would also be beneficial. Similarly, providing an annually expanding tax credit to individuals who have not drawn unemployment benefits incentivizes wage earners to remain employed.
Rebalancing the rates including such measures will, of course, be necessary. But let's be honest, which the authors seem not to be, the rate is only one of the many significant components of any tax structure.
2
Contrary to the so-called thoughts of the article's writers, we do not need to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a., Obamacare.
What this country needs is intelligent solutions about healthcare in the US. The thoughts of the authors are so far off the mark about fixing the ACA, that it is surprising that NYT would publish their writing.
What's wrong with what they have to say: they want to return to the old, confused healthcare system that allowed high premiums to be charged for minimal coverage to further enrich the corporate types, just like the authors.
Let's start dealing with healthcare in this country and stop simply dealing only in economic theory.
What this country needs is intelligent solutions about healthcare in the US. The thoughts of the authors are so far off the mark about fixing the ACA, that it is surprising that NYT would publish their writing.
What's wrong with what they have to say: they want to return to the old, confused healthcare system that allowed high premiums to be charged for minimal coverage to further enrich the corporate types, just like the authors.
Let's start dealing with healthcare in this country and stop simply dealing only in economic theory.
4
Many have commented on the first and third points of the plan but I have not seen comments on the second point: full deduction of capital costs.
Most economists agree that the majority of jobs lost, are lost to technology and not to the cheap labor of China or Mexico.
If we allow full deduction we will increase the rate of capital investment.
Good or bad aside, this will increase job loss, not create jobs.
Most economists agree that the majority of jobs lost, are lost to technology and not to the cheap labor of China or Mexico.
If we allow full deduction we will increase the rate of capital investment.
Good or bad aside, this will increase job loss, not create jobs.
3
The usual voodoo economics argument summarized as follows:
Have the poor and middle class subsidize the rich, and hope the rich feel benevolent enough to return some of that money back to the poor and middle class.
You could make corporate interest rates 0%, and corporations will still complain that American workers get paid too much money to justify employing them,
Have the poor and middle class subsidize the rich, and hope the rich feel benevolent enough to return some of that money back to the poor and middle class.
You could make corporate interest rates 0%, and corporations will still complain that American workers get paid too much money to justify employing them,
6
"And, if we are right that tax cuts will spur the economy, then the faster economic growth as a result of the bill will bring down the deficit."
I see that Arthur Laffer, father of "trickle-down" economics, is spewing his tired old claptrap again. Reaganomics has not worked in the past, it is not currently working nor will it ever work yet people still listen to this clown?
https://userctl.com/BlueVsRed/019.png
The nation did best when the wealthy paid a 90% tax rate. They rich kept getting richer (it is what they do) and the government was properly funded.
Dwight Eisenhower and the Republican Party brought us interstate highways, with the dual purpose of improving our nation's defense capability while improving the mobility of ordinary citizens. That is what true leadership is.
Donald Trump and the current Republican Party want to introduce an infrastructure bill, except it is one that will enrich the rich at the expense of the taxpayers funding the entire enterprise. I predict a lot more toll roads siphoning money from us peons real soon now.
It is the Republicans who have gotten us into the mess we are now in, I hardly think listening to them now is a good idea. Implementing their ideas would be the death knell of the middle class.
https://userctl.com/BlueVsRed/001.png
I see that Arthur Laffer, father of "trickle-down" economics, is spewing his tired old claptrap again. Reaganomics has not worked in the past, it is not currently working nor will it ever work yet people still listen to this clown?
https://userctl.com/BlueVsRed/019.png
The nation did best when the wealthy paid a 90% tax rate. They rich kept getting richer (it is what they do) and the government was properly funded.
Dwight Eisenhower and the Republican Party brought us interstate highways, with the dual purpose of improving our nation's defense capability while improving the mobility of ordinary citizens. That is what true leadership is.
Donald Trump and the current Republican Party want to introduce an infrastructure bill, except it is one that will enrich the rich at the expense of the taxpayers funding the entire enterprise. I predict a lot more toll roads siphoning money from us peons real soon now.
It is the Republicans who have gotten us into the mess we are now in, I hardly think listening to them now is a good idea. Implementing their ideas would be the death knell of the middle class.
https://userctl.com/BlueVsRed/001.png
3
One thing for certain: these flacks are terrible political advisers. Why would any voter care about a tax bill -- reform or cut -- aimed solely at business? Imagine running for reelection in 2018 on a plank of "We cut taxes for corporations, we'll get to you sometime." Which is why every tax law since 1986, and we've had dozens, combines goodies for voters and for business.
Interesting - did you notice how there is no word in here about lowering individual tax rates at all, but rather only rates on the 35% "corporate and small business tax rate"? What this means in English is that only corporate tax rates are to be cut, which are only paid by the largest 25% of American businesses while everyone else pays their business taxes via their individual returns. Which means that there is no tax cut or tax relief for the vast majority of American business owners, except for Kevin Hassett's supposed indirect tax relief that comes from cutting corporate taxes.
This plan won't get the 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster so it will all just sunset in 10 years like the W tax cuts. And in today's political climate, in which the GOP has transparently tried to stiff ordinary Americans to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, it probably won't get 50 votes in the Senate or even a majority in the House. Keep dreaming, Supply-siders.
This plan won't get the 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster so it will all just sunset in 10 years like the W tax cuts. And in today's political climate, in which the GOP has transparently tried to stiff ordinary Americans to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, it probably won't get 50 votes in the Senate or even a majority in the House. Keep dreaming, Supply-siders.
If anyone thinks this plan will benefit anyone but the oligarchs who seem to be running the country there's a bridge in Brooklyn with a "For Sale" sign on it -- toll to be determined.
1
The American people MUST see ALL of Trump's Tax Returns for the past 30 years - before - any negotiations - begin - on Tax Reform - whether it be sliced and diced into savory presented packages or the whole deal.
The American people MUST see ALL of Trump's Tax Returns - to KNOW - how to proceed with negotiating Tax Reform.
This is common sense - or, as one of the Commentors wrote - just outright give the money to the rich people and to Trump / Trump Family without a need of a Tax Bill.
The American people MUST see ALL of Trump's Tax Returns - to KNOW - how to proceed with negotiating Tax Reform.
This is common sense - or, as one of the Commentors wrote - just outright give the money to the rich people and to Trump / Trump Family without a need of a Tax Bill.
1
A complicated subject with a glaring lack of facts.
Prove it. What you say is suspicious to me. And while you're at it, we have have the highest corporate taxes, but with write-offs, I doubt that is true. So prove it.
And if you are so interested in higher paying jobs, why do you oppose minimum wage increases? Something doesn't add up.
Prove it. What you say is suspicious to me. And while you're at it, we have have the highest corporate taxes, but with write-offs, I doubt that is true. So prove it.
And if you are so interested in higher paying jobs, why do you oppose minimum wage increases? Something doesn't add up.
1
These men - along with Trump - should be made to produce their taxes before providing any input and advice on a tax overhaul.
I suspect we'd see that they paid little in taxes, leaving the peasants to make up for the shortfall.
I suspect we'd see that they paid little in taxes, leaving the peasants to make up for the shortfall.
2
Where is the evidence that supports this, until I see otherwise, fairy tale? These corporations with their profits stashed abroad, are doing so because their bottom line dictates they do so. It's the nature of the capitalist system. Corporations act in their own interests. Period. So these authors say there is a win/win opportunity. Let's see the evidence.
1
"And, if we are right that tax cuts will spur the economy, then the faster economic growth as a result of the bill will bring down the deficit."
You are not right, but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your delusion that tax cuts will reduce the deficit.
You are not right, but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your delusion that tax cuts will reduce the deficit.
1
The notion that our corporate tax rates make the US "uncompetitive" is an absurd argument. If Apple or Exxon truly wants to "support the troops", then they should pay the taxes to actually support them. And all the other costs of running this country. Instead, they keep their hordes of cash away from our shores and our taxes, thereby ensuring their own higher profits while their own country bleeds red ink.
1
One item, which I never see mentioned in a discussion about tax reform, should be the abolition of the tax free status for churches. Where I live there are more churches than schools and hospitals together, an unattractive fact.
1
The authors learned the wrong lesson from Republicans' failed health care bill. The lesson was that voters matter, and large numbers of voters didn't like the idea of losing their health care coverage. The bill didn't fail because it was complicated, it failed because 24 million more Americans would be uninsured with the bill than without it, and because many of those with insurance would have paid much more for it.
Applying that lesson to tax reform, the point isn't to keep it simple - the point is to make the proposal work for voters. The authors argue for deep tax cuts for corporations, based on the old canard that the American tax system makes American corporations globally uncompetitive. (The authors throw in "small businesses" in a lame effort to appeal to ordinary Americans, but small businesses don't compete globally, they compete locally. When you want a haircut, you go to your local barber, not a multinational conglomerate.)
The Citizens United decision gave a lot of voters' power away to corporations and their wealthy owners, but the health care fiasco proved that voters still matter. As long as "tax reform" is just a euphemism for gargantuan corporate tax cuts, voters won't be interested.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
Applying that lesson to tax reform, the point isn't to keep it simple - the point is to make the proposal work for voters. The authors argue for deep tax cuts for corporations, based on the old canard that the American tax system makes American corporations globally uncompetitive. (The authors throw in "small businesses" in a lame effort to appeal to ordinary Americans, but small businesses don't compete globally, they compete locally. When you want a haircut, you go to your local barber, not a multinational conglomerate.)
The Citizens United decision gave a lot of voters' power away to corporations and their wealthy owners, but the health care fiasco proved that voters still matter. As long as "tax reform" is just a euphemism for gargantuan corporate tax cuts, voters won't be interested.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
2
Sounds like a terrible plan. As usual from the Republicans its tax relief for the wealthy at the expense of working americans, and will increase the national debt. No thanks.
2
What I really want to know is this: how do the likes of Steve Forbes and Arthur Laffer find themselves on the op-Ed page of the New York Times?
Surely the editors know this "balance" is bogus because the proposal has no economic basis. It's just partisan tripe.
The comments demonstrate the readership is well aware the claims the article are fraudulent. Many link to studies of international comparisons and show awareness of wage stagnation. On the evidence, by publishing this screed the Times insults its readers' intelligence.
If the Times wants to promote civic discussion on tax policy and wage stagnation, why not invite articles from recognized experts on the left? Names aren't scarce. The Economic Policy Institute could suggest some. There's always Paul Krugman.
I suspect few readers know that academic ideas for corporate tax policy have circulated for decades without much attention from the press. For those who understand the issue, the reductive framework of taxes versus growth is not even wrong. Surely we'd benefit from hearing some intelligent, well intentioned proposals, instead of transparent deceit.
Surely the editors know this "balance" is bogus because the proposal has no economic basis. It's just partisan tripe.
The comments demonstrate the readership is well aware the claims the article are fraudulent. Many link to studies of international comparisons and show awareness of wage stagnation. On the evidence, by publishing this screed the Times insults its readers' intelligence.
If the Times wants to promote civic discussion on tax policy and wage stagnation, why not invite articles from recognized experts on the left? Names aren't scarce. The Economic Policy Institute could suggest some. There's always Paul Krugman.
I suspect few readers know that academic ideas for corporate tax policy have circulated for decades without much attention from the press. For those who understand the issue, the reductive framework of taxes versus growth is not even wrong. Surely we'd benefit from hearing some intelligent, well intentioned proposals, instead of transparent deceit.
2
There are gruops of people who are perfectly ok with the tax structure just the way it is, regardless of party affiliation, and for similar reasons. The first group are the DC politicians who want to insure their power remains by offering entitlements to the lazy and pork spending for their constituents. The 2nd group are 45 percent of he citizenry who pay no federal taxes, who like the 1st group want more entitlements and special benefits from their representatives. It all falls under an age old addage, commonly referred to as "40 acres and a mule". America will implode.
The rich trying to perpetuate their advantages and lifestyle. I will immediately contact my Representative and Senator and ask them to give Steve Fobes,Art Laffer,Larry Kudlow and Steve Moore a hand in devising another tax break for the patrician class. After all, trickle down has been so beneficial to the middle and working classes. I can't wait to see the Steve Forbes toll road open up in Erie ,Pennsylvania to repay the people who supported the Apprentice in the White House. After all, a toll road is far better than those silly "needless deductions " like real estate taxes and mortgage interest.
4
Here you go, working people. The best program for all of you is not raising the minimum wage, not providing universal health care, not making education more affordable--its more tax cuts for those at the top.
Trickle-down economics never works. It doesn't work because it provides no incentive for those at the top to let the money trickle down. From an Economics 101 perspective, it would be utterly irrational for the beneficiaries of this hogwash proposal to to pass their good fortune down to create more jobs or increase wages because this proposal does nothing to expand the markets for their products or services.
We've had record corporate profits since the end of the Great Recession. Yet, economic inequality has reached the levels of the 1920s. This proposal comes from a collection of economic yahoos who have a remarkable history of being completely wrong in their predictions. They have zero credibility. Why is the NY Times devoting its editorial space to publishing this nonsensical propaganda?
Trickle-down economics never works. It doesn't work because it provides no incentive for those at the top to let the money trickle down. From an Economics 101 perspective, it would be utterly irrational for the beneficiaries of this hogwash proposal to to pass their good fortune down to create more jobs or increase wages because this proposal does nothing to expand the markets for their products or services.
We've had record corporate profits since the end of the Great Recession. Yet, economic inequality has reached the levels of the 1920s. This proposal comes from a collection of economic yahoos who have a remarkable history of being completely wrong in their predictions. They have zero credibility. Why is the NY Times devoting its editorial space to publishing this nonsensical propaganda?
4
Trump should recuse himself from any interactions on Tax Reform and should not be able to sign it into law (or veto it). He is hopelessly compromised by his failure to release his taxes, and gives every indication of taking the side of Trump over the side of America.
5
In Trump's government there is no such thing as a conflict of interest.
This op-ed is written by the four horsemen of the apocalypse each of whom can decide which role to accept, conquest, war, pestilence or death. Also remember Kevin Hassett as the co-author with James K. Glassman of "Dow 36,000" a wildly off base prediction. The blind following the blind.
3
This "Expert" is spoon feeding us the same R. Reagan "Trickle Down" fantasy that has increased the total wealth of the 1% from about 33% in 1980, to about 45% of all private wealth in America today. Where did that 12% shift come from? The Middle Class Worker of course.
He needs to take a class in Krugman Economics and learn something.
We all know how this ends if it continues. Read any history book. Do you want your Revolution to come from bullets or ballots?
Famous last words? "Let them eat cake"!
He needs to take a class in Krugman Economics and learn something.
We all know how this ends if it continues. Read any history book. Do you want your Revolution to come from bullets or ballots?
Famous last words? "Let them eat cake"!
3
Steve Forbes, Larry Kudlow, Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore, co-founders of the Committee to Unleash Piracy
4
How dare they call it "Trump's Tax Plan" when all he knows about taxes is how to hire lawyers to help him avoid paying his taxes!!!
Show US your tax returns first before any "tax reform" is put before Congress, mr. so-called president.
Show US your tax returns first before any "tax reform" is put before Congress, mr. so-called president.
2
The authors should go peddle this nonsense on Faux News and then lead three cheers for the deficits their trickle down supply side have created for ordinary citizens.
3
Ah, no.
I'm a conservative Independent wise to the ways of the GOP establishment. Ryan and McConnell will pass the corporate reforms to pay off their corporate donors, then give the rest of us lame excuses and platitudes.
It's a Wimpy promise to pay the people Tuesday for a hamburger today.
I'm a conservative Independent wise to the ways of the GOP establishment. Ryan and McConnell will pass the corporate reforms to pay off their corporate donors, then give the rest of us lame excuses and platitudes.
It's a Wimpy promise to pay the people Tuesday for a hamburger today.
I guess Moe, Larry, Curly, and Shep were not available. Sometimes you just have to settle and move on.
6
If Trump wants to help out big business and corporate profits, then sure this sounds like a great plan. Give the rich a huge tax break, give them control over our (formerly) public infrastructure, and then give them massive deductions for all their expenses. Hope that some of the profits will make their way down to the middle class. Trickle down didn't work for Reagan and it didn't work for Bush. Income inequality rose meteorically under both of them. Bush's 'pro-business' policies directly caused one of the worst crashes in history. Why does anyone still believe in this nonsense?
If Trump really wanted to help the middle class with a tax cut, the solution is much simpler. Just expand the EITC to include the middle class, including those without children.
If Trump really wanted to help the middle class with a tax cut, the solution is much simpler. Just expand the EITC to include the middle class, including those without children.
3
Nobody who knows anything takes Larry Kudlow or Arthur Laffer seriously.
8
When lowering the tax rate for businesses, it is only fair to end their ridiculous tax benefits too. Carried interest - end it. Special treatment for real estate developers - end it. Tax avoidance by keeping money overseas - end it.
4
Exactly. The authors want lower rates and the exisitng loopholes. Very Trumpian.
There is no scientific evidence that tax cuts to business improve the economy. To the contrary, Ronald Reagan's tax cuts ran this country into staggering debt. Reports drearily announced how much of the national debt new babies inherited at birth. The decades of prosperity to which the authors point began during the Clinton administration, in which taxation was fair. Recycling the "restore prosperity by giving tax breaks to the rich" myth does a terrible disservice to those who don't remember the 186% increase to the national debt incurred by Mr. Reagan and his policies. It is disappointing to see the Times publish this tired dreck.
7
Have you looked at the staggering debt of Obamanomics. Massive debt and less than 2% growth and worsening wage gap. These four are correct. I'm surprised the NYT let them in the paper.
And at the same time, phase out the ESI tax exclusion which would go a long way in solving the healthcare issue.
The Republican establishment built and fueled the tea-party anger against Obama with scare-mongering about deficits. Never mind that basic economics refuted this Republican dogma. Or that Republicans never actually followed it in practice when in power--see Reagan's exploding deficits from tax cuts and increased spending, or Bush's squandering of a surplus with needless tax cuts into a big deficit. They created a rallying cry against deficits because it helped shore them up as the party of "no" and frustrate Obama's efforts to combat the recession.
Now the Republicans' chickens have come home to roost. The tea-party and Freedom Caucus members in Congress *actually believe* the lies that the Republicans ran on. So now that Republicans want to be their usual hypocrites and rely on deficit spending when in power, they are hoisted on their own petard and blocked by their own deficit hawks.
Maybe if Republicans publicly came clean and admitted that they were merely playing political games and lying about deficits to frustrate Obama's agenda for the last eight years, they could start to regain enough credibility that some form of bipartisan tax reform could be possible. But to just ignore how they created this mess or to try to rewrite history with a counter-narrative does not help advance any meaningful agenda.
Now the Republicans' chickens have come home to roost. The tea-party and Freedom Caucus members in Congress *actually believe* the lies that the Republicans ran on. So now that Republicans want to be their usual hypocrites and rely on deficit spending when in power, they are hoisted on their own petard and blocked by their own deficit hawks.
Maybe if Republicans publicly came clean and admitted that they were merely playing political games and lying about deficits to frustrate Obama's agenda for the last eight years, they could start to regain enough credibility that some form of bipartisan tax reform could be possible. But to just ignore how they created this mess or to try to rewrite history with a counter-narrative does not help advance any meaningful agenda.
3
I have a question: is this the same Arthur Laffer that developed Governor Brownback tax program and sent Kansas to a death spiral?
2
Thanks for your thoughts. But middle class Americans have to get back to work trying to rebuild there and their families' lives after Wall Street listening to your type of advice almost destroyed them during the Great Recession.
3
Always big business first, never the hard working voter.
2
I wonder how much total debt the US would have today if, the US government had left the Kennedy tax rates in place?
I wonder why President's Regan's tax rate reductions caused a 186% increase in the US national debt?
I wonder why the US could operate with a 47% corporate tax rate under President Kennedy, 40% corporate tax rates under President Regan, and now we need 15% corporate tax rate?
I wonder what happen if the US did not give the multinationals a special rate for returning their cash to the US?
[I mean the US Treasury now sets in the catbird seat here and can easily out wait the multinational corporations. As these corporations have been financing their stock buybacks and cash needs with increasing debt levels. And, these corporations will not just keep adding more and more debt year after year. At some point in time, they will return the cash to the US, pay their full 35% rate, and pay off their debt].
Since these corporations get a reduction in the 35% rate for any foreign taxes paid - I wonder why they need special treatment?