Can Trump seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix the tax code?

[libertybele]

The GOP has opportunities that haven't knocked on their door in a long time.  I hope they don't blow it!

Can Trump seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix the tax code?

...The bottom line is that President-elect Donald J. Trump has a once in a lifetime opportunity to radically reform the tax code, like President Ronald Reagan did in the ‘80s...

...Americans have not experienced a compensative rewrite of tax laws since the Reagan Administration. When Reagan worked with Congress to pass his tax rate reductions, he lowered the top rate from a staggering 70% to 28%. These tax reductions lead to massive growth in the economy and a Trump tax cut would also lead to significant growth.

It is important to note that the most self-destructive provision in federal tax law, the corporate tax rate, is the highest in the free world at 35% (39.1% if you include state corporate taxes). That rate needs to be slashed to stop the outsourcing of jobs to nations with lower corporate tax rates. Trump wants to slash the rate to 15% — a rate that would greatly help in stemming the flight of corporations to countries that have lower corporate tax rates.

President Donald J. Trump should write his own bill that cuts the tax rates for both businesses and individuals, cleans up crony provisions, and makes the code much simpler...

...Trump should not negotiate against himself, and he should push all of these ideas in his tax bill to provide radical, pro-growth tax reform that will end up being the cornerstone of his legacy...

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/can-trump-seize-this-opportunity-to-fix-the-tax-code#sthash.KqRTDpcj.dpuf

[geronl]

 

[rodamala]

Won't happen... he has too many scumbag tax lawyer and accounting friends.

[Cripplecreek]

Won't happen... he has too many scumbag tax lawyer and accounting friends.

Proposing import tariffs is not a sign of a man who will "fix" the tax code.

[libertybele]

Won't happen... he has too many scumbag tax lawyer and accounting friends.

??? You are forgetting that slashing corporate taxes will benefit him as well. I see it as a potential win-win situation; encouraging businesses and corporation to stay in the U.S and incentivize foreign companies to do business here is not a bad thing.

[libertybele]

Proposing import tariffs is not a sign of a man who will "fix" the tax code.

I think you are misunderstanding. I have little doubt that Trump will promote FAIR trade rather than FREE trade.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-poised-to-put-pressure-on-nafta-1479746005

[Maj. Bill Martin]

??? You are forgetting that slashing corporate taxes will benefit him as well. I see it as a potential win-win situation; encouraging businesses and corporation to stay in the U.S and incentivize foreign companies to do business here is not a bad thing.

There clearly are people who are so invested in Trump being absolutely horrible that they will not even contemplate the possibility that he might do some good things.  If he makes good nominations to the Court, it'll only be because he expects the nominations to be rejected.  If they get confirmed, it'll only be because he's made some shady deal on the side that'll be net worse for us.

I don't trust the guy at all when it comes to government spending.  But I do think you're right in that there's  a strong chance of positive reforms to the business tax code.  It simply makes too much sense, and the only reason the Democrats wouldn't do it is because they didn't want to be accused of selling out.

I'm hoping for positive reforms for business taxes, some positive regulatory reforms, appointing some good people to run the military and State, and a couple of good justices.

And then, I hope Ryan et al. dig in their heels to stop Bannon's crazy ideas on spending....

[Cripplecreek]

I think you are misunderstanding. I have little doubt that Trump will promote FAIR trade rather than FREE trade.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-poised-to-put-pressure-on-nafta-1479746005

No need for Trumpsplaining. He has made it very clear on many occasions that he wants to impose tariffs and has even admitted that prices will naturally be "a little higher".

[DB]

I think you are misunderstanding. I have little doubt that Trump will promote FAIR trade rather than FREE trade.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-poised-to-put-pressure-on-nafta-1479746005

Yes, that's worked so well every time its tried... More government is the answer you say... Have government further intervene in our buying and selling to save ourselves from ourselves... Very populist these days... Kind of like socialism, tried over and over expecting a different result...

[txradioguy]

I think you are misunderstanding. I have little doubt that Trump will promote FAIR trade rather than FREE trade.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-poised-to-put-pressure-on-nafta-1479746005

Fair trade amounts to some kind of government involvement...we don't need that...what we need is truly FREE trade.

And no there is no misunderstanding...Trump wants to impost tariffs as high as 45% in some cases with countries like China.

It didn't work out well for Herbert Hoover and it wouldn't be any better this time.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And no there is no misunderstanding...Trump wants to impost tariffs as high as 45% in some cases with countries like China.

I know he has said that.  That could just be an opening negotiating gambit to get some concessions on other issues.  At least, I hope that's the case.  Actual imposition of across the board tariffs would require congressional approval, and I don't see Congress agreeing to something that extreme.

But Bannon scares me.

[txradioguy]

I know he has said that.  That could just be an opening negotiating gambit to get some concessions on other issues.  At least, I hope that's the case.  Actual imposition of across the board tariffs would require congressional approval, and I don't see Congress agreeing to something that extreme.

But Bannon scares me.

If they are smart and know their history they won't agree to any of it.  It would finish off what's left of our economy. 

[libertybele]

Yes, that's worked so well every time its tried... More government is the answer you say... Have government further intervene in our buying and selling to save ourselves from ourselves... Very populist these days... Kind of like socialism, tried over and over expecting a different result...

NAFTA is a disaster.  NAFTA implements Free trade in lieu of fair trade and the U.S. has come out on the short end; mainly with China and Mexico. 

[DB]

NAFTA is a disaster.  NAFTA implements Free trade in lieu of fair trade and the U.S. has come out on the short end; mainly with China and Mexico.

So you say. What's the actual evidence of that? You are throwing everything in the pot and blaming NAFTA. Perhaps it could be some other factors, like Obamacare, nearly the highest corporate taxes in the world, endless environmental regulation, endless employee regulation, importing millions of illegal immigrants with nearly zero skills, etc. American business has been trashed by a million cuts yet you single out NAFTA as the big boogieman. I don't. A free people should be able trade their own production and wealth as they please without government interference.

And last but not least, America is not an island. You can't hide from the world nor can you artificially ignore competition. The world will move on with or without us whether you put up barriers or not. You either lead, keep up or fall behind.

[libertybele]

So you say. What's the actual evidence of that? You are throwing everything in the pot and blaming NAFTA. Perhaps it could be some other factors, like Obamacare, nearly the highest corporate taxes in the world, endless environmental regulation, endless employee regulation, importing millions of illegal immigrants with nearly zero skills, etc. American business has been trashed by a million cuts yet you single out NAFTA as the big boogieman. I don't. A free people should be able trade their own production and wealth as they please without government interference.

And last but not least, America is not an island. You can't hide from the world nor can you artificially ignore competition. The world will move on with or without us whether you put up barriers or not. You either lead, keep up or fall behind.

I disagree wholeheartedly and IMHO you are deluding yourself.  NAFTA IS a disaster and yes, it is the big boogieman.

...According to recent studies, NAFTA has caused a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs. Once we consider also our growing income inequality, it is easy to see that NAFTA has been a terrible deal for us.

It is easy to see how this has affected wages in the U.S. The average household income in the U.S. in 1999 was $56,080, in 2012 it was $51,017, and today it is $44,900. The affects of NAFTA have taken their toll on the American worker. With these lost wages and jobs real unemployment has risen to 23%....

http://economyincrisis.org/content/history-shows-that-nafta-is-a-disaster

NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html

youtube.com/watch?v=VNPkiJrk_Bw

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Proposing import tariffs is not a sign of a man who will "fix" the tax code.

?  The very first taxes imposed by the new USA was tariffs, and it survived as the major source of tax revenue by this country until WWI.  No sales taxes, no income taxes, nothing else.

So why is increasing tariffs not in your vocabulary.  You like income taxes instead?

[Oceander]

?  The very first taxes imposed by the new USA was tariffs, and it survived as the major source of tax revenue by this country until WWI.  No sales taxes, no income taxes, nothing else.

So why is increasing tariffs not in your vocabulary.  You like income taxes instead?

And the tariffs ended up not providing sufficient revenues and were too economically distorting.  If tariffs were really as good a source of revenue as you imply, they would not have been dumped.  They were dumped because they were insufficient and distortionary.

And if that's not enough, the Smoot-Hawley affair proved the utter idiocy of trying to raise anything more than marginal revenue from tariffs.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And the tariffs ended up not providing sufficient revenues and were too economically distorting.  If tariffs were really as good a source of revenue as you imply, they would not have been dumped.  They were dumped because they were insufficient and distortionary.

And if that's not enough, the Smoot-Hawley affair proved the utter idiocy of trying to raise anything more than marginal revenue from tariffs.

Tariffs were dumped?  When did that happen?

Income taxes initially passed during the War between the States overcame them as a greater source of revenue in an ever-expanding federal govt which needed more revenue.

That's what happened.

[txradioguy]

?  The very first taxes imposed by the new USA was tariffs, and it survived as the major source of tax revenue by this country until WWI.  No sales taxes, no income taxes, nothing else.

So why is increasing tariffs not in your vocabulary.  You like income taxes instead?

Great Depression ring a bell?  How about the 1929 stock market crash?

[Oceander]

Tariffs were dumped?  When did that happen?

Income taxes initially passed during the War between the States overcame them as a greater source of revenue in an ever-expanding federal govt which needed more revenue.

That's what happened.

I guess I'm going to have to take you through this school-boy style:

Tariffs are not the primary source of revenue today, true or false?

[Cripplecreek]

And the tariffs ended up not providing sufficient revenues and were too economically distorting.  If tariffs were really as good a source of revenue as you imply, they would not have been dumped.  They were dumped because they were insufficient and distortionary.

And if that's not enough, the Smoot-Hawley affair proved the utter idiocy of trying to raise anything more than marginal revenue from tariffs.

If you read Franklin's testimony against the stamp act, he warns the British government that if they try to impose the tax stamps on the colonists, the colonists will refuse to buy those goods or make their own illegally if need be.

He basically warned that the colonists would collapse their own economy rather than pay the extra tax.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Great Depression ring a bell?  How about the 1929 stock market crash?

Tariffs did not cause the '29 crash.

Please direct me to a source that backs up that claim.

Try again.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I guess I'm going to have to take you through this school-boy style:

Tariffs are not the primary source of revenue today, true or false?

I need an answer to my question first.

Let's start with your claim that tariffs were dumped.

Floating around does not help me understand how you came up with that claim.

[DB]

Tariffs did not cause the '29 crash.

Please direct me to a source that backs up that claim.

Try again.

Tariffs certainly played a part in it:

http://www.economist.com/node/12798595

The world is very close to a tipping point with all the printing/borrowing of money and only needs a few pushes in the wrong direction to trigger a chain reaction.

[Longmire]

I need an answer to my question first.

Let's start with your claim that tariffs were dumped.

Floating around does not help me understand how you came up with that claim.

Good luck getting a straight answer...she'll need a ladder to get off her high horse first.