[RD] Getting SALTy

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: This is an RD thread. How many times do I need to keep saying that RD threads are not for one-line snipes at each other? This will stop right now or further sanctions will be meted out.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Propose a zero minimum FIT tax and see what happens. I guarantee it will score well with CBO.

J

So the CBO is fake news until you want to score a talking point? Is that how this works? I think you should go back and retract your anti-CBO score statements now.

 

[onejayhawk]

So the CBO is fake news until you want to score a talking point? Is that how this works? I think you should go back and retract your anti-CBO score statements now.

The CBO is mechanistic and short sighted.

Case in point. Having a minimum tax of zero will score very well with CBO because it will significantly reduce federal payments. The other side of the coin is that it will do so exclusively below the poverty line. So, a good CBO score is not necessarily a good thing. Likewise a poor CBO score is not necessarily a bad thing. The 1980s tax redesign
yielded seven straight years of 3.5% or better growth, with 1984 topping 7%. The Bush tax cuts, not so much.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The CBO is mechanistic and short sighted.

Case in point. Having a minimum tax of zero will score very well with CBO because it will significantly reduce federal payments. The other side of the coin is that it will do so exclusively below the poverty line. So, a good CBO score is not necessarily a good thing. Likewise a poor CBO score is not necessarily a bad thing. The 1980s tax redesign
yielded seven straight years of 3.5% or better growth, with 1984 topping 7%. The Bush tax cuts, not so much.

J

It's not short sighted; they score these things based on their effects they will have over at least a decade. You're just cherry picking what you want out of the CBO and slapping on a veneer of fake news on the rest. It's dishonest to say the least.

 

[JollyRoger]

Propose a zero minimum FIT tax and see what happens. I guarantee it will score well with CBO.

J

AMT will not fly with the GOP

 

[metalhead]

I have not run the figures to calculate the exact lines, but a single mother of three can make $18,000 and still get the maximum $6300 EIC. The standard deduction is $9350, call it half, and marginal rate is 10%. That makes Federal income tax of $900. Using a FICA calculator, we get $1300. So the federal tax of $2200 is far below the credit of $6300. This is well down in the poverty range, but not uncommon.

Actually, the FICA is $2,600. The employer pays it, but simply lowers wages by that amount.

What is "not uncommon," in your estimation? Common enough that curtailing this should be a policy aim, or what?

 

[onejayhawk]

Actually, the FICA is $2,600. The employer pays it, but simply lowers wages by that amount.

What is "not uncommon," in your estimation? Common enough that curtailing this should be a policy aim, or what?

Common enough to refute the assertion that it was rare.

The employer is irrelevant. The woman makes what she makes. The mechanism of how that figure arrives is not germane.

AMT will not fly with the GOP

This is not alternative minimum tax or anything like it, but it would do well enough with the GOP. The Democrats are the ones that would have a fit.

J

 

[metalhead]

Common enough to refute the assertion that it was rare.

How common is that, specifically, that makes it more than "rare?"

The employer is irrelevant. The woman makes what she makes. The mechanism of how that figure arrives is not germane.

J

The mechanism where she functionally pays the entirety of the FICA tax levied based on her wages is most definitely germane to a discussion about taxes.

 

[BvBPL]

If we could move past this absurd gotcha gibberish, it’s worth noting that the tax reform bill has moved out of the senate subcommittees and is going to the floor for debate. While this is progress for the bill, opening up debate is permitting a lot of amendments, modifications, and the like. Included therein is a deficit trigger proposed by fiscal conservatives to automatically par back the tax cuts if the economy does not grow as anticipated by the bill.

McCain and Murkowski have indicated support for the bill. It now looks like there are about ten Republican senators who have expressed concern about the bill, but none who have out and out stated they will vote against it. While the GOP can lose no more than two votes from its own party and still pass the bill, it is looks like the reform bill will be passed on strictly party lines. (but then so did the Obamacare repeal)

Meanwhile, the tax bill has become very unpopular with the citizenry in polling. That probably wouldn’t make a difference when November 2018 and 2020 come around.

 

[Lexicus]

Meanwhile, the tax bill has become very unpopular with the citizenry in polling. That probably wouldn’t make a difference when November 2018 and 2020 come around.

How much do you want to bet that Democrats are elected railing against this bill, then get into office and do nothing to reverse it, instead conniving with the Republicans to cut Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and other social programs? Will people be ready to get out the guillotines then or will we have to wait even longer?

 

[onejayhawk]

If we could move past this absurd gotcha gibberish, it’s worth noting that the tax reform bill has moved out of the senate subcommittees and is going to the floor for debate. While this is progress for the bill, opening up debate is permitting a lot of amendments, modifications, and the like. Included therein is a deficit trigger proposed by fiscal conservatives to automatically par back the tax cuts if the economy does not grow as anticipated by the bill.

McCain and Murkowski have indicated support for the bill. It now looks like there are about ten Republican senators who have expressed concern about the bill, but none who have out and out stated they will vote against it. While the GOP can lose no more than two votes from its own party and still pass the bill, it is looks like the reform bill will be passed on strictly party lines. (but then so did the Obamacare repeal)

Meanwhile, the tax bill has become very unpopular with the citizenry in polling. That probably wouldn’t make a difference when November 2018 and 2020 come around.

The story I am hearing is that all 52 Republicans are willing to vote yes. McCain was the main holdout and he has declared in favor. Does anyone have any confirmation more authoritative than word of mouth? Corker and Flake supposedly declared in favor. Last I heard Collins was still holding back.

How much do you want to bet that Democrats are elected railing against this bill, then get into office and do nothing to reverse it, instead conniving with the Republicans to cut Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and other social programs? Will people be ready to get out the guillotines then or will we have to wait even longer?

Any Democrats elected will certainly be railing against the law (it would no longer be a bill). As we have seen with ACA, a law is a fait accompli and not easily reversed.

J

 

[BvBPL]

How much do you want to bet that Democrats are elected railing against this bill, then get into office and do nothing to reverse it, instead conniving with the Republicans to cut Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and other social programs? Will people be ready to get out the guillotines then or will we have to wait even longer?

No one is going to be elected for railing against tax reform. Although the tax reform bill is deeply unpopular, it will not affect people's decisions when they go to the polls. As when the government experience multiple shutdowns in years prior, tax reform will be forgotten when November comes around. It just wouldn't be something that moves votes.

When the Democrats are in power they probably will be less able to reverse this reform not because they will collude with further cuts, but because the Democratic whips will be unable to line up the votes to move big reforms through without drowning in special interest riders that will bog the whole thing down. Instead, we will see piecemeal modifications made over the course of years that will create another giant mess.

 

[BvBPL]

JCT's estimation predicts .8% growth over next ten years resulting from tax reform bill. Reform will result in about a trillion in lost taxation revenue over that time period (after a $500 billion offset from expected growth).

 

[Lexicus]

JCT's estimation predicts .8% growth over next ten years resulting from tax reform bill.

JCT?

 

[BvBPL]

Joint Committee on Taxation

 

[Lexicus]

Joint Committee on Taxation

I don't agree with their analysis, this tax bill will likely lead to economic contraction in fact.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The CBO scored the Senate version of the bill which had a trigger mechanism to raise taxes automatically if economic growth didn't match expectations. It ruled that the current version of the bill is ineligible for the budget reconciliation process. This means they have to start reworking the bill and there are enough deficit hawks that demanded the trigger mechanism that the prospects for passage went down a bit.

 

[Lexicus]

So, how long until they get rid of the CBO?

Oh also @onejayhawk let's hear you defend this:
(spoiled because quite large)

Spoiler :

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So, how long until they get rid of the CBO?

Oh also @onejayhawk let's hear you defend this:
(spoiled because quite large)

Spoiler :

This is my thinking exactly. The CBO has not been kind to Republican bills because, well, you can't put a square peg in a round hole. The Republicans have so far been content to just throw up flak at the CBO by attacking its methodology which they don't believe in when it doesn't suit their purposes. You can see it in action here as onejay has taken to using the CBO when it's politically convenient and then bashes it when it's not.

Up until now, the CBO mostly hasn't impacted their ability to pass legislation. Now that their analysis has shown that the Republicans cannot pass their tax bill due to procedural hurdles, I expect they will take it upon themselves to dismantle it.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean, I have problems with CBO analysis too. The most notorious example probably when they used stock-flow inconsistent models to predict that the Great Moderation of the late '90s would continue indefinitely with government surpluses and economic growth forever. But the Republicans' problem with it goes no further than "They score bill bad. Me no like. Me destroy!"