Do lower taxes = faster growth?

[Gmoney4WW]

Wait a minute 2poor, a nonsensical proposal to cut taxes, with conditions that would never let it cut taxes, is about as logical as everything else Trump is proposing...

As long as it gets Trump closer to the landless gentry giving him the nomination, Trump would do it.

 

[2PoorTUFans]

Wait a minute 2poor, a nonsensical proposal to cut taxes, with conditions that would never let it cut taxes, is about as logical as everything else Trump is proposing...

And Bush, and Carson, and Rubio, and Fiorina, and Paul. I'm not aware of tax proposals from any other GOP candidates, but they all seem to really love tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and they only pay the slightest of lip service to any corresponding spending cuts.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I have serious doubts about whether any of the other candidates would cut it from 39% to 25%. If they propose any cuts with numbers behind them, I am assuming it would be in the 30's.

 

[2PoorTUFans]

I have serious doubts about whether any of the other candidates would cut it from 39% to 25%. If they propose any cuts with numbers behind them, I am assuming it would be in the 30's.

In order from least to most hilarious:
Bush's plan has a top rate of 29%.

Rand has a flat tax of 14.5%, but he allows a pretty decent threshold before you start paying.

Carson has proposed a flat tax of 10%, starting from dollar 1 of income. He has also called for a balanced budget amendment. These two policies together would necessitate a day 1 reduction in government spending of 72%.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Yes but aren't most of these plans eliminating deductions, which the wealthy make full use of. I know Rand's plan eliminated all but mortgage and charity deductions.

 

[lawpoke87]

Stated tax rates are largely irrelevant when we talk about what the wealthy pay yet we continue to quote them like their a meaningful number. The tax code is written with so many tax shelters and loopholes that the ultra-wealthy with the aid of their tax attorneys don't pay anywhere close to the stated top rate. In some cases the middle class pays a higher effective rate than someone making $10M a year. Hell...GE paid zero tax on $108B in earnings in 2012 as it stashed the revenue in offshore tax havens.

The tax code needs to be trashed and re-written in a manner where someone in the top bracket pays somewhere close to the state tax rate. We're $20T in debt. We can't cut taxes without eliminating the loopholes. We can't increase spending by $19T.

 

[URedskin54]

As far as hedge fund managers go some are able to get money taxed at the capital gains rate, some have most or all of it taxed at the normal rate. It depends on how long the fund is able to hold the investments.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Stated tax rates are largely irrelevant when we talk about what the wealthy pay yet we continue to quote them like their a meaningful number. The tax code is written with so many tax shelters and loopholes that the ultra-wealthy with the aid of their tax attorneys don't pay anywhere close to the stated top rate. In some cases the middle class pays a higher effective rate than someone making $10M a year. Hell...GE paid zero tax on $108B in earnings in 2012 as it stashed the revenue in offshore tax havens.

The tax code needs to be trashed and re-written in a manner where someone in the top bracket pays somewhere close to the state tax rate. We're $20T in debt. We can't cut taxes without eliminating the loopholes. We can't increase spending by $19T.

Yeah, that's the whole point behind a flat tax rate. Trump was going to reduce deductions, which is a dime store joke. Yeah, I'll reduce the one I don't care about and leave the ones alone that I do care about. The real problem with all this is that any president(democrat or republican) makes claims that he/she will blah blah blah on taxes. They never mention the caveat, 'I will do this, if the proper # of congressmen and women from my party are elected to office.' Thank God no president can enact these reforms without checks and balances. It's causing gridlock these days, but sometimes gridlock is good.

 

[TUBballJunkie]

From a TW article last year:


"The cuts are dependent upon revenue triggers, meaning Oklahoma's general revenue collections must increase before the cuts take effect. The measure will reduce the personal income tax rate from 5.25 percent to 5 percent in 2016 if state revenue projections increase by enough to cover the cost."

And it's supposed to be for couples earning more than $15k and single filers over $8k. While still dumb, it's hardly just for the rich.

 

[2PoorTUFans]

wow, is that where our top bracket kicks in?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

From a TW article last year:


"The cuts are dependent upon revenue triggers, meaning Oklahoma's general revenue collections must increase before the cuts take effect. The measure will reduce the personal income tax rate from 5.25 percent to 5 percent in 2016 if state revenue projections increase by enough to cover the cost."

And it's supposed to be for couples earning more than $15k and single filers over $8k. While still dumb, it's hardly just for the rich.

My apologies 2Poor & Junkie I cross threaded and misunderstood which cuts u were referring to.

 

[WATU2]

Is it likely that the Republican candidates are presenting programs that sustain government or that are aimed at reducing the size of government (also infrastructure, education, and the other elements needed for a thriving economy)?

If you elect people you do not believe in good government then how can you expect them to provide good government? It is self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[lawpoke87]

I think a better question is what is the purpose of government and should there be a limit to its size and power. Government spending per household in 1962 was $11,700. This year that number had exploded to $29,000 per household. These numbers are inflation adjusted. Yet, there are those who want even more of our money to go to the government? Is education, infrastructure, growth three times better today than it was in the 1960s? Twice as good as the seventies and early 80s?

Are we getting what we are paying for? Maybe a better question is where is all this extra money going today compared to 30 or 40 years ago? Are we better off due to this extra government spending and if so how much? Does government do a good job of spending our tax dollars in an efficient manner? Is government accountable for its spending and actions? Is our government fiscally responsible? Is $29k per household enough and if not then what number is sufficient ?

Taxing yourself to prosperity seldom works.

 

[TUBballJunkie]

Yup, the cut was supposed to affect something like 65% of taxpayers.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-taxes-oklahoma.aspx

 

[TUMe]

This is an example of what happen with Governor Hall. He is the governor that went to federal prison for other things. [Illegally moving state retirement funds to friends.]

He promised to tax the "fat cats." It turned out that a fat cat was anyone who made over $10,000 a year. But what was worse was that it was not indexed. Years later fat cats were eating cat food on $10,000 a year.

 

[aTUfan]

it is better for the people who EARNED the money to get to keep more and then SPEND it where they want,
than
the government TAKING money from the people who EARNED it, and then GIVING it to people who didn't.

 

[2PoorTUFans]

I think a better question is what is the purpose of government and should there be a limit to its size and power. Government spending per household in 1962 was $11,700. This year that number had exploded to $29,000 per household. These numbers are inflation adjusted. Yet, there are those who want even more of our money to go to the government? Is education, infrastructure, growth three times better today than it was in the 1960s? Twice as good as the seventies and early 80s?

Are we getting what we are paying for? Maybe a better question is where is all this extra money going today compared to 30 or 40 years ago? Are we better off due to this extra government spending and if so how much? Does government do a good job of spending our tax dollars in an efficient manner? Is government accountable for its spending and actions? Is our government fiscally responsible? Is $29k per household enough and if not then what number is sufficient ?

Taxing yourself to prosperity seldom works.

Oh there is certainly plenty of bloat and inefficiency that could be done away with in government, a lot of money is wasted on dumb pork barrel programs, inefficient or redundant government agencies, and a runaway military-industrial complex. Government is decidedly an imperfect operator.

Having said that, the types of technological breakthroughs and societal changes that I, and I'm sure plenty of people, would like to see are not ever going to arise organically through the free market, so government investment is a requirement. I would say most of the events we can point to as being exemplary of "American exceptionalism" are a direct result from the actions of government.

Science and exploration of the type that led to the moon landings, the Hubble, the space shuttles, or the large Hadron collider (should have been ours, dammit), are never going to occur through market forces. Even going back hundreds of years (Lewis and Clark, Christopher Columbus, etc.), exploration and work on the frontier has always been the place for entities that don't have to put profits as priority 1, like government. Exploring the frontier is not often especially lucrative.

And go ahead and make all the Solyndra jokes you want, but the market is also not going to be why clean energy sources suddenly become viable. Nurturing of that industry to the point where they contribute a meaningful amount to our power generation is only going to occur through government subsidy.

 

[TUMe]

Your examples are true. So are Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Microsoft, Alexander Graham Bell and many other non-government advances.

 

[2PoorTUFans]

If anything, your examples only prove my point for the necessity of government involvement. The car, the computer, the light bulb, were all relatively cheap items developed strictly to be monetized. Precisely the sort of thing that someone focused on profits first would work to develop. The free market is very good at such things. The Edison of the 1960s was never going to be able make say, the Saturn 5 rocket.

I'd also argue that we have reached a point of technological advancement where expecting the next Edison to emerge with a world-changing technology that he developed in his garage just isn't realistic anymore. The fusion reactor is a far cry from the incandescent light bulb.