Great Republican Lie (tax "reform")

[Limbo Pete]

You wanna at least wait to see an actual tax year before deciding we're suddenly moving from the roughly the same tax revenue we've always had, regardless of marginal tax rate?

"If tax revenue remains the same, but the wealthy pay less of it, then that mea-
Oh look i've gone crosseyed"

 

[kpt018]

You wanna at least wait to see an actual tax year before deciding we're suddenly moving from the roughly the same tax revenue we've always had, regardless of marginal tax rate?

Why? We have a very good handle on how the code will effect revenue but the thing in question is growth and the most optimistic models have us adding a trillion to the deficit over ten years. So yeah, the growth comes no where near close to paying for the cuts and we don't need to wait a year to determine that.

 

[nostradumbass]

"If tax revenue remains the same, but the wealthy pay less of it, then that mea-
Oh look i've gone crosseyed"

"The wealthy" are still going to pay almost all of the tax revenue, and it will still be within a few percentage points of GDP that it's always been.

 

[Limbo Pete]

"The wealthy" are still going to pay almost all of the tax revenue, and it will still be within a few percentage points of GDP that it's always been.

"...and everything else is virtually identical."

 

[nostradumbass]

Why? We have a very good handle on how the code will effect revenue but the thing in question is growth and the most optimistic models have us adding a trillion to the deficit over ten years. So yeah, the growth comes no where near close to paying for the cuts and we don't need to wait a year to determine that.

Well, you do need to wait, cause your "handle" isn't accurate.

 

[nostradumbass]

"...and everything else is virtually identical."

OK, that was pretty funny.

 

[kpt018]

Well, you do need to wait, cause your "handle" isn't accurate.

Based on what? I am referring to expert models and again, there is a range of outlooks but I gave you the most optimistic one (revenue drops $1.5T, growth pays for $0.5T). That's the best one.

Share with us what you're seeing.

 

[nostradumbass]

Based on what? I am referring to expert models and again, there is a range of outlooks but I gave you the most optimistic one (revenue drops $1.5T, growth pays for $0.5T). That's the best one.

Share with us what you're seeing.

Historical tax rates and revenues. We're already 20 trillion in debt in just 15 years, so adding 1 trillion in 10 years is already an improvement, but I don't think that's what it will be. The gov't has turned into a college freshman getting a credit card. I do not think tax revenue will go down by any significant amount, it's the spending that needs to get reeled in to lower the debt.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Based on what? I am referring to expert models and again, there is a range of outlooks but I gave you the most optimistic one (revenue drops $1.5T, growth pays for $0.5T). That's the best one.

Share with us what you're seeing.

That's not the best one. Just the one that has the lowest deficit-impact estimate that can be sanely defended. I think realistically, the deficit impact will be much larger than that, given how badly written the law is (leaving for huge amounts of opportunity for gaming, not to mention reduced growth).

 

[Jack V Savage]

Historical tax rates and revenues. We're already 20 trillion in debt in just 15 years, so adding 1 trillion in 10 years is already an improvement, but I don't think that's what it will be. The gov't has turned into a college freshman getting a credit card. I do not think tax revenue will go down by any significant amount, it's the spending that needs to get reeled in to lower the debt.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension there, chief. The $1T debt increase is *on top of* previously projected debt increases. And of course tax revenue will go down. That's what tax cuts are (and the offsetting hikes don't nearly cover the cuts).

 

[kpt018]

Historical tax rates and revenues. We're already 20 trillion in debt in just 15 years, so adding 1 trillion in 10 years is already an improvement, but I don't think that's what it will be. The gov't has turned into a college freshman getting a credit card. I do not think tax revenue will go down by any significant amount, it's the spending that needs to get reeled in to lower the debt.

Well that's different that what you've criticized and quite frankly this makes no sense. You're still not backing up your claim that revenue will not go down by a significant amount, which is laughable. I don't mean to be a dick here but it really is not supported by anything I've seen by a long shot.

That's not the best one. Just the one that has the lowest deficit-impact estimate that can be sanely defended. I think realistically, the deficit impact will be much larger than that, given how badly written the law is (leaving for huge amounts of opportunity for gaming, not to mention reduced growth).

Ok, I was asking him to provide a better one that he has seen. I have not seen one from a reputable source lower than that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

"The wealthy" are still going to pay almost all of the tax revenue, and it will still be within a few percentage points of GDP that it's always been.

This is another huge factual error that drives your view, and I'm sure that finding that out won't affect your position at all. Revenue dropped 27% relative to GDP after the Bush cuts.

 

[kpt018]

@Jack V Savage I misread your response. I have not seen one with a better forecast than adding $1T net to the deficit that was put out by a non-hack.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage I misread your response. I have not seen one with a better forecast than adding $1T net to the deficit that was put out by a non-hack.

I think I misread yours. I thought you were saying "the best one" in the sense of "the most credible one." But you meant "the credible study with the lowest deficit-impact estimate." Right?

 

[kpt018]

I think I misread yours. I thought you were saying "the best one" in the sense of "the most credible one." But you meant "the credible study with the lowest deficit-impact estimate." Right?

Yes, that's what I meant. All good, I wasn't that clear.

Credible with most optimistic outlook on deficits added.

 

[scoopj]

For those that haven’t seen the chart comparing current tax brackets to proposed...

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/15/5712...n-of-the-republican-tax-bill-would-affect-you

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes, that's what I meant. All good, I wasn't that clear.

Credible with most optimistic outlook on deficits added.

I think I was just lazy in reading it. It's clear.

 

[nostradumbass]

You really need to work on your reading comprehension there, chief. The $1T debt increase is *on top of* previously projected debt increases. And of course tax revenue will go down. That's what tax cuts are (and the offsetting hikes don't nearly cover the cuts).

What was I supposed to read and comprehend, exactly? I don't know what the previously projected debt increases even were. These cuts don't really apply to the bulk of where tax revenue came from, and again, the spending wasn't sustainable in the first place so the spending was always more of a concern than the income end anyway.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What was I supposed to read and comprehend, exactly?

The thread, the studies. Something. The misconception that the $1T represented the total increase in debt over 10 years rather than additional increase due to the changes is pretty fundamental, and the fact that you made it this late in shows that you have really been misunderstanding the whole discussion.

I don't know what the previously projected debt increases even were. These cuts don't really apply to the bulk of where tax revenue came from, and again, the spending wasn't sustainable in the first place so the spending was always more of a concern than the income end anyway.

In what sense was spending not sustainable? And if spending were not sustainable, how on Earth would cutting revenue by at least $1.5 trillion help with that?

 

[nostradumbass]

Well that's different that what you've criticized and quite frankly this makes no sense. You're still not backing up your claim that revenue will not go down by a significant amount, which is laughable. I don't mean to be a dick here but it really is not supported by anything I've seen by a long shot.



Ok, I was asking him to provide a better one that he has seen. I have not seen one from a reputable source lower than that.

Which is why I said, just wait 1 tax year. Your sources are just guesses when historically, changes in marginal tax rates don't really dictate tax revenue. There are deductions that are going away, so I don't really think anybody is paying much less in personal income tax than they were before.