Corrected title: Now the GOP has accomplished massive tax reform

[greatnoob]

I hope youre smart enough to understand we could have just as easily paid for this IN FULL without cutting services.

Right?

Like the coward you are you once again didn't bother answering my question, this is the third time I've asked. Why do you support these tax cuts that transfer wealth to the rich and the corps? By all means ty and answer it, I'll just wait for you to deflect it once more. I appreciate you dodging it this badly because if you even tried to do answer it you'd show us how incredibly stupid you are.

feel free to throw in some buzzwords while you're at it like "communism" and "Cayman Islands", it helps show us how little you know. At least now you know what a wealth transfer is hahaaa

 

[blackangst1]

Sorry, I forgot the crayons. If you admit that everyone at least needs catastrophic insurance and the ACA offers catastrophic insurance, what is the problem with the mandate?

Because it takes away choice. Plain and simple.

 

[dank69]

Because it takes away choice. Plain and simple.

The choice to gamble with other people's money?

 

[blackangst1]

Like the coward you are you once again didn't bother answering my question, this is the third time I've asked. Why do you support these tax cuts that transfer wealth to the rich and the corps? By all means ty and answer it, I'll just wait for you to deflect it once more. I appreciate you dodging it this badly because if you even tried to do answer it you'd show us how incredibly stupid you are.

feel free to throw in some buzzwords while you're at it like "communism" and "Cayman Islands", it helps show us how little you know. At least now you know what a wealth transfer is hahaaa

Oh I have. The last one was post 1540.

 

[greatnoob]

First, this tax bill DOES in fact accomplish *PART* of what I want, which is reduced tax burden for EVERYONE. I have stated Im not particularly happy the bottom quintiles "in pocket" money will drop slightly after 10 years. Im happy with the corp tax rate being permanent, and wish the personal rate cuts were, but that wasnt possible under the confines of this bill's passage.

So your entire proposal for these tax cut is what exactly? Reduced burden?! It does the complete opposite of that especially considering it's being passed at a time when it isn't needed (not in a recession). The middle class who supposedly benefit from this receive almost nothing when you realise the inflationary pressure this tax bill will create negates the pennies they'll be getting. In real terms they may be a few pennies better off in the short run but poorer in the long run. You call that reduced burden?

 

[Fern]

I'm not saying that some people shouldn't be compensated more favorably, I'm saying that system has become so skewed that it's lost touch with reality. The gap between CEO and worker pay, for example, has exploded and what does the US have to show for it? Are we more innovative than we were when the gap was smaller? Are our firms performing better? What?

In general, the person (CEO etc) in charge of a very large business will have much higher compensation than a person in charge of a small business. Their responsibilities are much greater etc. This is normal, few people would argue with that.

The graph you have presented above spans a period where our large corporations went from being primarily domestic businesses to huge international businesses. Thus, the responsibilities of the CEO's etc grew greatly. Simple ways to measure the increases are (1) the amount of revenue they are responsible for (profit centers), (2) the amount of expenditures they are responsible for (cost centers) and/or (3) the amount of employees they are responsible for. The lack of this sort of contextual data leads users of the chart to erroneous and ill informed conclusions.

Another very significant omission is that of the stock market(s). The stock market did not go 'retail' until the 80's. The advent of IRAs and 401ks took the stock market to broad retail levels. The average person entered the stock market. E.g., when I graduated university in the early 80's a seat on the NYSE could be had for $100,000. (I actually looked at one for sale at that time for that price). You couldn't touch one today without adding a bag of zero's to that number.

The above has completely changed the compensation model for CEOs. Incentive stock options etc came into existence in the early 80s (the 'retail-ization' of the stock market helped enable this compensation model change too, it was necessary in fact). So, the CEO comp numbers from the 60's etc do not include ISOs and stock bonuses. In today's world the lion's share of a CEO's comp is from stock options. I.e., the compensation compared in the chart is 'apples to oranges'. (I'd like to see salary comparisons with only guaranteed cash amounts.) I'll also add that unlike the CEOs of yesterday, the current ones risk losing the majority of their compensation. Stock price doesn't go up? Your options have no value and what is received is the guaranteed cash amount (again, which is generally a small fraction of what is published as comp).

The reason the compensation model has changed is because the job of a CEO has changed. The role of a CEO of the 60s or 70s is a much different than that today. In the 60s and 70s or so the CEO was compensated and rewarded for what are relatively small incremental improvements to the bottom line (net profit). Today's CEO are primarily rewarded for improvements in the stock's price. I.e., today's CEO is hired to jack up the stock price, which can be a massive amount of profit to shareholders, and thus gets a 'cut' of that increase through stock compensation. Different jobs, compensated differently. So much 'apples to oranges' here.

A meaningful chart would compare the value added benefit a CEO of the 60s/70s to that brought by a CEO of today. I'd bet that the compensation amounts are lot more in line than most would think. Who should be paid a lot more, a guy that brings in a million to the bottom line or the guy that adds billions to stock value?

Finally, I'll mention that we have millions of corporations in this country. To choose a few hundred of the largest to guide policy for all is stupid. The 99.9% that aren't Fortune 500 companies have little to nothing in common with those few giants; why should the policy be the same?

TLDR: The system has been "skewed", not to lose touch with reality, but to keep up with it.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... clip ... ]
TLDR: The system has been "skewed", not to lose touch with reality, but to keep up with it.

Fern

That's an interesting analysis, yet it doesn't explain why U.S. CEOs are paid dramatically more than their overseas counterparts (~2x to 5x more): https://www.statista.com/statistics/424154/average-annual-ceo-compensation-worldwide/

Similarly, it doesn't explain why U.S. CEOs are so disproportionately compensated compared to their employees, compared to peer CEOs in other countries (354x more in the U.S., compared to 28x to 148x elsewhere): https://www.statista.com/statistics...ceos-and-average-workers-in-world-by-country/

 

[dank69]

That's an interesting analysis, yet it doesn't explain why U.S. CEOs are paid dramatically more than their overseas counterparts (~2x to 5x more): https://www.statista.com/statistics/424154/average-annual-ceo-compensation-worldwide/

Similarly, it doesn't explain why U.S. CEOs are so disproportionately compensated compared to their employees, compared to peer CEOs in other countries (354x more in the U.S., compared to 28x to 148x elsewhere): https://www.statista.com/statistics...ceos-and-average-workers-in-world-by-country/

Yeah but it sounds way better than admitting his ideology has been shown to be a sham.

 

[yllus]

Hasn't there already been hints by the GOP about cutting Medicare and SS in order to reduce the increased deficit caused by their tax bill, or was that just liberal hysteria?

It's all but assured.

CNN - GOP will tackle Medicare, Medicaid, welfare in 2018, Ryan says

Washington (CNN)The House GOP caucus plans to work on entitlement reform next year as a way to "tackle the debt and the deficit," according to House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Speaking to Ross Kaminsky on his talk radio show, the Wisconsin Republican said Wednesday that the House would be working to reform health care entitlements in 2018, calling them "the big drivers of our debt," during a discussion about the Republican tax bill.

"Tax reform grows the economy," Ryan said. "So we basically planned in this term three big budget bills: two entitlement reform bills, one economic growth tax reform bill. The first one passed the House, failed the Senate, this one, both tax bills have passed the House and the Senate, we're on track with that, and then next year we're going to have to get back at entitlement reform."

Ryan specifically mentioned Medicare as being the "biggest entitlement that's got to have reform."

...

Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders responded to Ryan's comments critically on Twitter, arguing that the Republican Party planned to pay for its tax bill with cuts to entitlements.

"There it is. Paul Ryan just admitted that after providing $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1% and large corporations, Republicans will try to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and help for the most vulnerable Americans," Sanders wrote.​

 

[fskimospy]

That's an interesting analysis, yet it doesn't explain why U.S. CEOs are paid dramatically more than their overseas counterparts (~2x to 5x more): https://www.statista.com/statistics/424154/average-annual-ceo-compensation-worldwide/

Similarly, it doesn't explain why U.S. CEOs are so disproportionately compensated compared to their employees, compared to peer CEOs in other countries (354x more in the U.S., compared to 28x to 148x elsewhere): https://www.statista.com/statistics...ceos-and-average-workers-in-world-by-country/

Exactly what I was going to say. This ballooning of compensation is a US phenomenon, not an inevitable consequence of businesses getting larger and more complex. The bifurcation of wages also shows up in other non-CEO positions anyway.

I’m always baffled as to why people try so hard to rationalize a system that’s lost touch with reality. Ideology is strong I guess.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
On to my point. No president has ever reduced federal spending.in over 100 years that did anything significant. That needs to change. I know people want their perks, but damn...our federal spending is way out of control. Neither Bush's nor Trump's tax cuts address this. I think the idea of reducing spending in such a way as to make a difference is an idea buried in a deep dark hole, and that frustrates me.

I think its funny how all through this thread I have repeated my desire to reduce spending and only one person asked me many pages ago...what would I cut?

First on the chopping block would be military. A 1.5T cut over 10 years would have been a piece of cake, with no addition to debt. But, to my last point, no one in WADC wants to cut spending.

First, I want to thank you for offering thoughtful discussion from a conservative viewpoint. While I disagree with most of your conclusions, it's a real breath of fresh air to see someone from the right supporting your positions and answering challenges. P&N has been overrun with useless GOP noise-bots for far too long. Kudos.

That said, I won't pile on on all the things I disagree with, but I am curious about your comment above. Given that our population continues to grow, our economy continues to grow, and our dollars continue to shrink (inflation), is it realistic to want federal spending to drop significantly? Would it be good policy to shrink it? I agree we should cut actual waste in government, but I'm cautious about the economic impact of cuts.

Consider your example of the military. I agree we spend way too much on the military, but I also recognize our military spending is effectively a giant jobs program. Cutting that spending by $150 billion a year would throw upwards of a million people out of work. That seems like a good way to trigger a recession.

Your thoughts?

 

[Bowfinger]

It's all but assured.

CNN - GOP will tackle Medicare, Medicaid, welfare in 2018, Ryan says

Washington (CNN)The House GOP caucus plans to work on entitlement reform next year as a way to "tackle the debt and the deficit," according to House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Speaking to Ross Kaminsky on his talk radio show, the Wisconsin Republican said Wednesday that the House would be working to reform health care entitlements in 2018, calling them "the big drivers of our debt," during a discussion about the Republican tax bill.

"Tax reform grows the economy," Ryan said. "So we basically planned in this term three big budget bills: two entitlement reform bills, one economic growth tax reform bill. The first one passed the House, failed the Senate, this one, both tax bills have passed the House and the Senate, we're on track with that, and then next year we're going to have to get back at entitlement reform."

Ryan specifically mentioned Medicare as being the "biggest entitlement that's got to have reform."

...

Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders responded to Ryan's comments critically on Twitter, arguing that the Republican Party planned to pay for its tax bill with cuts to entitlements.

"There it is. Paul Ryan just admitted that after providing $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1% and large corporations, Republicans will try to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and help for the most vulnerable Americans," Sanders wrote.​

On the bright side, Ryan has to get through McConnell, and McConnell doesn't see to be on board: It's Ryan vs. McConnell on entitlement reform"

Speaker Paul Ryan’s dream of overhauling the nation’s entitlement programs in 2018 will soon run into a harsh reality: His own party isn’t on board.

The Wisconsin Republican has detailed an ambitious effort to dramatically reshape Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs that the GOP has long targeted as ripe for reforms. But bring it up with key Senate Republicans and House GOP moderates and they blanch — seeing a legislative battle that may not be winnable and that may not be worth it in an election year where control of Congress is up for grabs.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has all but ruled out the idea, saying publicly that he doesn’t expect to see welfare and entitlement changes on the agenda next year, particularly if it's done in a party-line manner. ...​

I have little faith in McConnell; he's at least as slimy as Ryan. McConnell will need 60 votes, however, and that seems way out of reach. But, I do like the idea of more GOP civil war.

 

[bshole]

Trish Regan of Fox Business totally RIPS Republican tax plan.

This rant was about hedge fund billionaires who pay lower taxes than middle class folks.

This guy, Stephen Schwarzman (Blackstone Group CEO) who’s made over $400 million in one year and percentage-wise, well guess what his tax bracket is actually lower than a New York City cop. How do you like that? And it’s because he calls his income ‘investments.’ The president promised to fix this remember?

You mean to tell me special-interest lobbyists are so alive and well in Washington that they convinced the entire House and the entire Senate to ignore this inequity? I’m beginning to wonder if our country is becoming ungovernable. Because I’ll tell you one thing, our Founding Fathers never, ever anticipated a swamp like the one we have today,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEGSmd908oU

 

[blackangst1]

You conveniently ignored the affects of Bush's tax cuts which happened at the beginning of his term and had zero effect on the economy. So no, it's not a "non point", just because you want it to be.

You also can't complain about the debt and then ignore the 1.5t more debt this bill will create because "it's spread over 10 years".

Just in case you weren't aware, the Congress may set the budget but the president has to sign it into law. Which means the budget was negotiated by both parties and when Republicans have full control they don't reduce spending, they increase it by a large magnitude. You could claim the same for Democrats but you be willfully ignoring the fact that the last two Democrat presidents and the Democrat Congress they enjoyed came in at a time of economic recessions.

Hey we agree on something! I too would cut military spending. Where we don't agree is on a tax bill that is A) unwarranted in this economic climate B) does nothing of value to help the general welfare of this country C) used funny math to pass.

You didn't address my other question. What do you think the point of taxes are and what roll do you think government should play in our society?

First, you say the tax cuts didn't help the economy. I agree to a point, but more importantly they helped the families that got the money. Ask any of the families who received a check if they want to send it back.

Second, I have stated this bill isn't perfect and there are things I DON'T like. However, the 1.5T over ten years isn't economy crushing. It's less than 3.75% per year. Which I also stated SHOULD have been and COULD have paid via military cuts. But they didn't.

Finally, I think taxes are for the same things you do...federal projects, federal responsibilities, social responsibilities, and federal defense. The difference between you and I is I think the government side funds too many pet projects, overspends on it's responsibilities, and takes in far more than it needs. You, and many others, feel the opposite.

 

[blackangst1]

Oh, and that 51% number is falling.....

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24

(45% as of 2016 but with this new tax cut, not sure if it will continue to fall with rising economy of fall as a result of temporary tax cuts and credits).

Good. The bottom two quintiles are still negative which is important to note.

 

[blackangst1]

So your entire proposal for these tax cut is what exactly? Reduced burden?! It does the complete opposite of that especially considering it's being passed at a time when it isn't needed (not in a recession). The middle class who supposedly benefit from this receive almost nothing when you realise the inflationary pressure this tax bill will create negates the pennies they'll be getting. In real terms they may be a few pennies better off in the short run but poorer in the long run. You call that reduced burden?

We aren't in a recession. Not like 10 years ago. I do admit there are many who still haven't recovered, but overall we're doing pretty good considering where we were at 10 years ago.

Oh and tell the common wage earners their tax cut is insignificant and they should just send it back. See what they say.

 

[Engineer]

Good. The bottom two quintiles are still negative which is important to note.

By design. Let the government and credit fund the spending for business, not business paying higher wages. When it all blows up, government bails out everyone and the cycle starts over.

 

[blackangst1]

Yeah but it sounds way better than admitting his ideology has been shown to be a sham.

Are you capable of partaking in conversations with more than one or two sentences with cuss words thrown in?

 

[blackangst1]

It's all but assured.

CNN - GOP will tackle Medicare, Medicaid, welfare in 2018, Ryan says

Washington (CNN)The House GOP caucus plans to work on entitlement reform next year as a way to "tackle the debt and the deficit," according to House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Speaking to Ross Kaminsky on his talk radio show, the Wisconsin Republican said Wednesday that the House would be working to reform health care entitlements in 2018, calling them "the big drivers of our debt," during a discussion about the Republican tax bill.

"Tax reform grows the economy," Ryan said. "So we basically planned in this term three big budget bills: two entitlement reform bills, one economic growth tax reform bill. The first one passed the House, failed the Senate, this one, both tax bills have passed the House and the Senate, we're on track with that, and then next year we're going to have to get back at entitlement reform."

Ryan specifically mentioned Medicare as being the "biggest entitlement that's got to have reform."

...

Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders responded to Ryan's comments critically on Twitter, arguing that the Republican Party planned to pay for its tax bill with cuts to entitlements.

"There it is. Paul Ryan just admitted that after providing $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1% and large corporations, Republicans will try to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and help for the most vulnerable Americans," Sanders wrote.​

What pisses me off and one of the reasons I moved away from GOP party affiliation is they refuse to look at military.

 

[Engineer]

What pisses me off and one of the reasons I moved away from GOP party affiliation is they refuse to look at military.

They look at military every year. They want to raise it far faster than anything else, inflation included.

 

[blackangst1]

First, I want to thank you for offering thoughtful discussion from a conservative viewpoint. While I disagree with most of your conclusions, it's a real breath of fresh air to see someone from the right supporting your positions and answering challenges. P&N has been overrun with useless GOP noise-bots for far too long. Kudos.

That said, I won't pile on on all the things I disagree with, but I am curious about your comment above. Given that our population continues to grow, our economy continues to grow, and our dollars continue to shrink (inflation), is it realistic to want federal spending to drop significantly? Would it be good policy to shrink it? I agree we should cut actual waste in government, but I'm cautious about the economic impact of cuts.

Consider your example of the military. I agree we spend way too much on the military, but I also recognize our military spending is effectively a giant jobs program. Cutting that spending by $150 billion a year would throw upwards of a million people out of work. That seems like a good way to trigger a recession.

Your thoughts?

I don't want to oversimplify things, but cutting is always hard. Those like me who have had personal experience in their own house know this, but cutting is hard. There are many retraining programs available (changing with the times etc) and getting federal spending under control will take a national effort. In the case of the military, there are soooo many "black book" operations that can be cut. Globally we have a far greater footprint than we need. For perspective, I have a good friend who is retired special forces who now works for Blackwater. His specialty is urban warfare, and has been stationed in Iraq for the last 5 years, 4 months at a time. He echoes what I just said.

As far as SS, Medicare and Medicaid go, they need desperately to be overhauled. The bureaucracy, hoops, and inefficiency is staggering. Again I speak with some authority as my brother and mother both receive federal assistance.

 

[blackangst1]

They look at military every year. They want to raise it far faster than anything else, inflation included.

Yes I know. And it pisses me off.

 

[greatnoob]

We aren't in a recession. Not like 10 years ago. I do admit there are many who still haven't recovered, but overall we're doing pretty good considering where we were at 10 years ago.

Oh and tell the common wage earners their tax cut is insignificant and they should just send it back. See what they say.

Yes, you absolute dense retard. There is no recession, so explain why these tax cuts are needed. That is what I asked you, answer the question instead of going off in tangents.

I just explained to you the real value of this tax cut is meagre pennies for the middle class in the short run and an actual tax increase in the long run, add to that the fact that morons like you supporting this tax bill have proposed cutting vital services (have you figured out what will be getting cut yet or do you need to be spoon fed that too? Go ask your buddy Paul Ryan) that said group use and you realise this doesn't benefit them at all no matter how you spin it. Are you really going to say any rational person would be happy getting screwed over like this?

If you are an idiot and look at money in nominal terms then you can say that $18 extra per week is "good" for middle class earners (despite it not being anything of value compared to what the rich will be stealing from these people) but if you're not a complete imbecile (sorry to say that you unfortunately are) and you factor in inflation those $18 are pennies. Do you know what "real" and "nominal" means? If you don't, ask so you don't sound like an idiot defending a position you clearly don't understand.

I thought you were purposely being dense but you are just too stupid to understand what's being said. If you want me to explain things to you like you're a five year old, just ask. Retard.

 

[blackangst1]

Yes, you absolute dense retard. There is no recession, so explain why these tax cuts are needed. That is what I asked you, answer the question instead of going off in tangents.

I just explained to you the real value of this tax cut is meagre pennies for the middle class in the short run and an actual tax increase in the long run, add to that the fact that morons like you supporting this tax bill have proposed cutting vital services (have you figured out what will be getting cut yet or do you need to be spoon fed that too? Go ask your buddy Paul Ryan) that said group use and you realise this doesn't benefit them at all no matter how you spin it. Are you really going to say any rational person would be happy getting screwed over like this?

If you are an idiot and look at money in nominal terms then you can say that $18 extra per week is "good" for middle class earners (despite it not being anything of value compared to what the rich will be stealing from these people) but if you're not a complete imbecile (sorry to say that you unfortunately are) and you factor in inflation those $18 are pennies. Do you know what "real" and "nominal" means? If you don't, ask so you don't sound like an idiot defending a position you clearly don't understand.

I thought you were purposely being dense but you are just too stupid to understand what's being said. If you want me to explain things to you like you're a five year old, just ask. Retard.

First, since when are services being cut? Second, when have I ever...EVER...supported that? And third, my patience with you is gone. You don't seem to have any comprehension whatsoever, and the best you can do is personally attack and call names. Sorry, but I don't play on children's playgrounds, so rant on.

And no. In not blocking you. It's fun watching kids play 🙂

 

[greatnoob]

I don't want to oversimplify things, but cutting is always hard. Those like me who have had personal experience in their own house know this, but cutting is hard.

The fact that you see the economy somehow similar to your household is laughable and probably explains why you dont understand what's being said to you. Idiot. Next time have a good grasp of your position so you can actually argue it.