Jeb Bush’s new tax plan could cost $3.4 trillion over next decade

[dgordo]

If you haven't gone back to where you were before a recession happened, then you haven't actually experienced growth. It's like going negative in Jeopardy, and being excited that you've climbed closer to only being at $0.

What isn't back to where it was before? Gdp is at an all time high.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

What isn't back to where it was before? Gdp is at an all time high.

At the moment it is not, and that's not what I'm talking about. JR brought that up, and he doesn't understand that he only proved my point. GDP hit record levels because of near zero percent interest rates and because of QE1-3.
This is a very controlled and manipulated effort for growth, but the growth is nothing more than a false promise. Once you see the rates return to a higher percentage, which they will, you will see a sharp decline. The whole reason for the loss in the market for about the past month now is NOT just due to China, but in our case, mostly due to the Fed and the word that they are going to start the raise.
Again, if a economy panics this much, to simply raising the rates to where it should be to begin with, then you have a serious problem.

 

[JRHawk2003]

You're just making up terms. Its not a recession. Wages are stagnate, but its not a recession. There is not negative GDP. You can say its not a robust growth pattern,and you could make that case. A marginal tax cut by Bush won't turn that around.

 

[Hawkeye009]

Wait a minute... I thought liberals and democrats were all for government spending? Cutting taxes is a way of spending, right? I've heard liberals make this argument in the past on this board, at the same time conservatives were arguing that it was not spending. Which is it?

I'm not sure if you were serious, and I don't purport to speak for liberals, but you are using the right-wing caricature against them, not their own policy position. I've never heard a liberal argue for spending just for the sake of spending. They want particular programs funded. Just as they would likely balk at spending more by doubling our military, they would likely balk at spending by giving the money to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. There is no inconsistency with that. You can disagree as a matter of policy, of course, but your argument is way off base here.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

You're just making up terms. Its not a recession. Wages are stagnate, but its not a recession. There is not negative GDP. You can say its not a robust growth pattern,and you could make that case. A marginal tax cut by Bush won't turn that around.

Not really, because if we are still in danger of falling off the ship because of the raise of interest rates, which should already have been raised long ago, then we are in trouble and possibly on the verge of another and larger recession.
I'm far from the only one that said, that the moves by the Fed and DC were only as good as the glue that holds on the bandaid they provided, to which this economy is seeing 'improvement.'
As for Bush, nothing he or anyone can do, will stop the inevitable.

 

[GarryO37]

I'm not sure if you were serious, and I don't purport to speak for liberals, but you are using the right-wing caricature against them, not their own policy position. I've never heard a liberal argue for spending just for the sake of spending. They want particular programs funded. Just as they would likely balk at spending more by doubling our military, they would likely balk at spending by giving the money to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. There is no inconsistency with that. You can disagree as a matter of policy, of course, but your argument is way off base here.

Suuuurree... OK. You would be correct if I hadn't already seen them post the drivel I spoke of. Liberals have never taken a serious stance on cutting spending. The only thing I hear is cut military spending. Great! How do you want to cut it? New Technology? Cut back on troops? Neither of which are a good idea. They don't know how they want to cut military spending. They just want it cut.

Of course they wouldn't want funding from their own programs cut. They never take a look at funding they can cut from programs they support, but that doesn't stop them from damning others if they don't make serious cuts.

If you want to get serious about the deficit, then everyone needs to take a bite out of the shit sandwich, liberals and conservatives alike.

 

[Hawkeye009]

Suuuurree... OK.

Well, it is hard to argue with that logic!

 

[GarryO37]

Well, it is hard to argue with that logic!

I changed my mind and added more.

 

[Hawkeye009]

But your addition was simply to argue against liberals wanting to fund their own programs and not cut spending as a net proposition. You haven't done anything to address the paragraph that I originally critiqued. You don't like their policies. Fine. That doesn't make that particular objection reasonable or make sense.

 

[dgordo]

What isn't back to where it was before? Gdp is at an all time high.

At the moment it is not, and that's not what I'm talking about.

GDP as of the end of q1 2015 was 16.30 trillion, that is an all time high. If thats not what you meant, whats not back to where it was?

 

[Chewback]

Wait a minute! This is one of the better GOP plans?

If you're a Republican it's one of the better plans. It buys nice toys and lets future generations pay for them.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

If you're a Republican it's one of the better plans. It buys nice toys and lets future generations pay for them.

Don't tax and spend works great for them on several levels - it drives up the deficit so they can argue the need for cuts in future expenditures; it makes the unwashed masses believe we have to reduce spending, and they get the benefits of today with their grandchildren stuck with the bill - despite their purported belief in the strength of the family.

 

[JRHawk2003]

Sure...I will give you specifics on cutting it. Close bases in Japan, Germany, England....places that are fully capable of defending themselves. We don't need to play world policeman. Our middle east adventurism never goes well.

Stop approving weapons systems the Pentagon does not even want but Congress puts in because its built in someone's district.

 

[naturalmwa]

No it didn't, and anyone who thinks that it staved off a depression doesn't know what they are talking about. We're still very much in a recession at this time. It never went away, it was just prolonged.

Could you tell us the definitions of depression and recession you are using that fit our current circumstances? TiA.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

Same old discredited Trickle Down Republican orthodoxy:

Just three tax brackets. No more taxes on death or marriage. Tax cuts for major corporations and small businesses and about 42 million families.

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush on Wednesday unveiled a long-awaited tax reform plan that would add trillions of dollars to the deficit, filling in details that he says would help fulfill his promise to restore 4 percent annual economic growth. With a North Carolina factory as his backdrop, Bush married traditional conservative thinking on taxes with some politically viable proposals that already enjoy support on Capitol Hill.

The plan would add $1.2 trillion to the deficit, even when using a system favored by Republicans that takes into account any potential growth the tax changes could encourage, according to Republican economists who reviewed the plan on Bush's behalf. The plan would lose closer to $3.4 trillion using traditional methods.

Given the high price tag and some of the details, Bush's tax plan is fraught with political peril. His brother, former president George W. Bush, focused much of his 2000 presidential campaign on plans to slash taxes and jump-start economic growth. Those tax cuts contributed to the record deficit spending that even Jeb Bush criticized Tuesday night on Stephen Colbert's new late-night talk show. In 2012, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney had similar ideas on tax reform that were widely dismissed by voters, who believed he was pushing policies that would mostly help wealthy people.

So Bush is also embracing an idea also backed by GOP frontrunner Donald Trump and Democrats, including President Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. He would end a lucrative tax loophole for hedge fund and private equity managers that lets them avoid billions of dollars in taxes by treating their income as capital gains instead of salaries.

"My plan works whether you're on Main Street or Wall Street – no special favors, no special breaks," he told workers and invited supporters at Morris & Associates, an industrial refrigeration company in Garner, N.C.

Bush described the current tax code as "a disaster."

“It punishes people for doing things we should encourage and rewards people for doing things that may not be so good," he added. "It taxes paychecks hard but gives companies a write-off for debt. The current tax code makes it easier to borrow than to build. I believe it’s time we build for the future, not borrow from it."

Later, he explained his plan by using what he claimed was a common Florida phrase: "We need to let the big dog eat. We need to focus on creating a fair environment, and then let people pursue their dreams as they see fit."

If Bush becomes president, he would seek to condense seven tax brackets into three: 10 percent, 25, percent and 28 percent. He would slash the corporate tax rate to 20 percent, end the Alternative Minimum Tax, the estate tax and the so-called marriage penalty tax, while continuing deductions for charitable giving. Bush also would cut home mortgage deductions to just 2 percent and eliminate state and local tax deductions, essentially goading local governments to slash high tax rates.

Independent assessments of the total cost of Bush's proposals weren't immediately available. But in advance of its release, the Bush campaign asked four GOP economists -- John Cogan, Martin Feldstein, Glenn Hubbard and Kevin Warsh -- to analyze the plan. Buried within their 17-page analysis was the trillions-dollar price tag. Notably, they did not factor for Bush's goal of 4 percent economic growth, instead presuming that an additional 0.5 percent per year in growth would come from the tax plan and another 0.3 percent from proposed regulatory reforms. That would still leave the U.S. economy short of 4 percent annual growth.

Bush spokeswoman Allie Brandenburger dismissed the traditional scoring of such plans as "antiquated" and "irrelevant, except to partisan liberals who think that we can tax our way to prosperity."

Bush’s plan is one of the least aggressive in the GOP field, in terms of tax cuts — far behind the flat-tax proposals from Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson, among others. But it also tracks with the way the GOP-controlled Congress generally talks about tax reform.

Democrats quickly dismissed Bush's ideas as "an even more extreme plan than his brother’s."

"Just as he did in Florida, Bush is embracing a disastrous economic agenda that benefits himself, and those like himself, while leaving the middle class out to dry," said Holly Shulman, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee.

But Bush on Wednesday faulted liberals for embracing a "new normal" that includes lower economic growth and worker take-home pay.

"In truth it is just the best the progressive liberals can do," he said. "And to state the obvious, the new normal is not good enough, and not even close."

He also drew distinctions with Trump, who was speaking at the exact same time at a tea party-sponsored rally on the Mall in Washington to denounce the Iranian nuclear deal.

Bush said that candidates like Trump "who call themselves Republicans, will tell you that to save U.S. jobs, we have to throw up a bunch of walls and tariffs and protect our businesses from competition. That’s a siren call of surrender, and I won’t go for it."

"The way we bring jobs back to America is to take power out of Washington, give it back to the American people by allowing them to have more of their hard-earned money," he said, adding later: “Senator Clinton and Mr. Trump may not believe we can do it, but I sure as heck do -- and I know you do as well."

A self-professed policy wonk, Bush has been working on details of his tax reform plan for months with a small team of advisers, many of whom have close ties to Wall Street and Capitol Hill. His policy chief, Justin Muzinich, is a former Manhattan investment banker, while Michael Steel, a communications and policy aide, served House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and on the 2012 vice presidential campaign of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

That's why it should be no surprise that Bush shares common goals with Ryan and other congressional Republicans, including his call to lower tax rates, reduce the number of tax brackets and eliminate the majority of tax deductions.

Bush has also adopted elements of Ryan's old media and outreach strategy. When the Wisconsin congressman chaired the House Budget Committee, he would unveil his spending proposals by publishing an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. Bush did the same thing with his tax plan on Wednesday.

Ryan also would use television interviews to tout his ideas. Ditto Bush, who appeared on the Fox News Channel and CNBC on Wednesday morning, where he faced questions about Trump's sustained popularity.

"I’m running a policy oriented campaign," Bush told CNBC. "I’m not going to be the loudest vote out there and I’m not going to disparage and insult people. I’m going to come up with plans that give people hope that their lives can be better."

"If people are going to want someone who disparages everybody, and that’s their version of a sign of strength, then I’m not going to be elected president," he added. "But if they want someone that has the leadership skills to change the culture in Washington, which is broken, I’m a disrupter. That’s what I did when I was governor of Florida."

Bush, like Ryan and other presidential candidates, has also been careful to woo key conservative advocates for sweeping tax cuts. On Tuesday, he convened an hour-long meeting in Manhattan at the offices of New York Jets owner Woody Johnson and huddled with a trio of supply-side conservatives. Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore, publishing executive Steve Forbes and CNBC contributor Larry Kudlow met with Bush alongside Johnson, Bush’s national finance chairman, according to two Republicans familiar with the meeting.

Bush is the latest in a series of candidates to meet with Kudlow, Moore, Forbes and Republican economist Arthur Laffer, who are part of a group they call the Committee to Unleash Prosperity that is pushing candidates to reduce taxes on income and investment — particularly for the highest-earning Americans — to spur more economic growth.

But Bush is one of the last major GOP contenders to do so. Moore said Tuesday that he and the other organizers are trying to line up a separate dinner with Bush next month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...x-overhaul-plan-calling-for-fair-environment/

Most American families are being killed by taxes. Why do you want to punish the American family?

 

[stout1]

If you're a Republican it's one of the better plans. It buys nice toys and lets future generations pay for them.

Straight outta the Reagan playbook.

 

[Hawkeye009]

Most American families are being killed by taxes. Why do you want to punish the American family?

I'd love to hear your definition of "killed," and then see it squared with the actual data on US tax burdens. (Romney's 47% quote looks way off if most families are not only paying taxes, but being killed by them!)

 

[Titanhawk2]

Didn't read it. Assume it's another one of those "tax cuts cost the government money" stories.

 

[theVoicefromtheTomb]

The idea that a marginal change in the interest rate is going to create a recession is at best

And that is objectively a false statement. The Laffer curve is a theory, but you have to know what side of the curve you are on. Only someone who doesn't understand the theory, or who is trying to intentionally mislead, would make your claim.

Of course, it is true that lower tax rates can bring in more tax revenue. Whether they will actually do so,however, is subject to intense debate and impacted by myriad factors. The statement that they always do so (as your sentence suggests) is just flat out wrong.

Congratulations. You are the first person on this board who has actually demonstrated an understanding of the Laffer Curve and even more have shown an understanding of why it is flawed.

 

[JRHawk2003]

I am not sure where people are getting killed? What are you willing to give up?

Then when you break it down further in discretionary spending you get

The favorite whipping boys of the right like food stamps and various social programs make up a small portion.

 

[dgordo]

I am not sure where people are getting killed? What are you willing to give up?

Then when you break it down further in discretionary spending you get

The favorite whipping boys of the right like food stamps and various social programs make up a small portion.

The other favorite is that we are being crushed by the weight of our debt; reality is that debt service payments are 6% of spending and dropping.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Until we rein in our bloated, out of control military spending, we shouldn't even speak of cutting entitlement spending.