Bannon Suggests Making High Earners Fund Tax Cut On Working Class

[INVAR]

I would consider it a huge win for the people if we could at the very least stop these Omnibus budget bills from being the law of the land and actually put some teeth back into the individual committees and let them set the budgets for the areas they preside over.

I think that notion exists in the same realm of possibility that abolishing the IRS does.

[Smokin Joe]

I would consider it a huge win for the people if we could at the very least stop these Omnibus budget bills from being the law of the land and actually put some teeth back into the individual committees and let them set the budgets for the areas they preside over.

None of them will forego the leverage of having to 'pass the whole package or shut the government down.'
In the care fully orchestrated media panic, incredible nonsense can be shoved through and funded, things that would never pass committee scrutiny or exposure.

[Smokin Joe]

I think that notion exists in the same realm of possibility that abolishing the IRS does.

Perhaps some day Conservatives will get a 'wish list' through Congress.

But I'm not holding my breath.

[DB]

THAT is a bold-faced lie.  Your own posts and vain efforts to portray yourself as such reveal you to be nothing of the sort you claim to be.

No better identifier of a Big Government Liberal Statist/Communist than those who think like that.

Like good lefties they can "identify" as anything they want. He identifies as "conservative"... Reality need not play any part nor can you challenge it.

[Hoodat]

Idiot.  Tax cuts fund themselves.

Where does he think the money he is going to let the taxpayer keep comes from?

[Jazzhead]

There are two ways to meet a budget.

The one I have become most familiar with in the last couple of years is go over the budget and cut expenses.

Government hasn't even had a budget, much less cut costs, even though maintaining current revenue and dissolving the programs which are beyond the scope of any sane interpretation of the Constitutional Authority of the Federal Government would likely pay off the DEBT in our lifetimes (and I'm an old fart). 

The other one (not always available to us Citizens) is to make more money.

For short term problems the judicious use of credit may be in order, with a plan to pay it off before money is borrowed. That is a stopgap, however, and not a long-term solution.

That's why I'm such a strong proponent of eliminating or substantially cutting corporate income taxes.  Such a move helps businesses make more money (by keeping more of what they earn).   That in turn has a ripple effect on both employees (more get hired, or get raises) and consumers (products they purchase aren't marked up to account for the producer's tax bill.)   

The problem with cutting or eliminating the corporate income tax is ideological opposition by the left.   But the left also loves to tax the rich.   To me,  Bannon has the germ of a good idea -  if conservatives can't get their act together,  rather than abandon the idea of corporate income tax cuts,  work with centrists on the Dem side to achieve them.  And what will the Dems want in exchange for cutting the corporate income tax?   Why,  increased personal income tax rates on the rich.   

I think that's a backup strategy worth considering.   Ideally, it wouldn't be necessary - all the savings needed to cut the corporate tax rate can and should come from the block-granting of Medicaid.   But that requires GOP unanimity that simply isn't there.    So what is Trump to do?   If conservatives won't dance, get another partner.   

[txradioguy]

Idiot.  Tax cuts fund themselves.

Where does he think the money he is going to let the taxpayer keep comes from?

@Hoodat

From the Federal reserve. /s

 Don't you know that the government is the ultimate decider...or at least to him should be...on how much you make or how "lucky" you are?

[Jazzhead]

Idiot.  Tax cuts fund themselves.

Where does he think the money he is going to let the taxpayer keep comes from?

Not necessarily.  There is some dynamic effect of tax cuts,  but it depends significantly on the type of tax and the marginal change in rates.   The Reagan tax cuts were dynamic, but they represented low-hanging fruit - the top tax rate pre-Reagan was, if I recall correctly, around 70%.   Individual income tax rates are much lower now;  cutting the top rate by a couple of percentage points won't stimulate the economy much, nor will raising the top rate a couple of points slow it down. 

But the corporate income tax rate?   THAT's a tax that's simply far too high,  and influences business decisions directly.   The impact of eliminating the corporate income tax would be economic growth far in excess of the nominal tax revenue "lost".   That's why it's so important to get the votes together to cut or eliminate it.   And if that means raising personal income tax rates on the rich to garner Dem support,  then that strikes me as a good deal for the economy.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Not necessarily.  There is some dynamic effect of tax cuts,  but it depends significantly on the type of tax and the marginal change in rates.   The Reagan tax cuts were dynamic, but they represented low-hanging fruit - the top tax rate pre-Reagan was, if I recall correctly, around 70%.   Individual income tax rates are much lower now;  cutting the top rate by a couple of percentage points won't stimulate the economy much, nor will raising the top rate a couple of points slow it down. 

But the corporate income tax rate?   THAT's a tax that's simply far too high,  and influences business decisions directly.   The impact of eliminating the corporate income tax would be economic growth far in excess of the nominal tax revenue "lost".   That's why it's so important to get the votes together to cut or eliminate it.   And if that means raising personal income tax rates on the rich to garner Dem support,  then that strikes me as a good deal for the economy.

I will say that one virtue of actually eliminating corporate income taxes completely is that it basically wipes out an entire category of costs for corporations -- not just the taxes themselves, but all the tracking, accounting, and lawyers needed.  Those are pure inefficiencies that don't produce any goods or services of independent value.  So the gain to businesses would be greater than the tax revenues lost.  Payroll taxes are a different story, and much easier to calculate/pay.

But we get about $350B a year from corporate income taxes.  Exactly how high would you need to raise individual rates, and on whom, to pay for eliminating corporate taxes?

[Jazzhead]

But we get about $350B a year from corporate income taxes.  Exactly how high would you need to raise individual rates, and on whom, to pay for eliminating corporate taxes?

That's a good question;  I don't know the answer but it will depend in part on assumptions made about dynamic scoring.   Most proposals, of course, have been to substantially cut, but not eliminate it (e.g., to 15% or 20%, so it is competitive with most of the rest of the world).  But you are correct - the impact of complete elimination would be even more substantial because of the reduction in compliance costs.  To me, it's an idea well worth exploring, even at the expense of higher income tax rates for the rich (e.g., above $200,000), or perhaps on unearned income and/or inherited wealth.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That's a good question;  I don't know the answer but it will depend in part on assumptions made about dynamic scoring.   Most proposals, of course, have been to substantially cut, but not eliminate it (e.g., to 15% or 20%, so it is competitive with most of the rest of the world).  But you are correct - the impact of complete elimination would be even more substantial because of the reduction in compliance costs.  To me, it's an idea well worth exploring, even at the expense of higher income tax rates for the rich (e.g., above $200,000), or perhaps on unearned income and/or inherited wealth.

I wouldn't reject out of hand a complete elimination of corporate tax cuts financed by increases to individual rates.  But unless you eliminate them completely, 1) you're not going to gain efficiencies from eliminating the cost of tax compliance, and 2) they'll eventually ratchet the corporate rates back up while keeping individual taxes high.

Since I don't think eliminating the corporate rate entirely is possible, I'd be against any increase in the individual rates at all.

[Hoodat]

Not necessarily.  There is some dynamic effect of tax cuts,  but it depends significantly on the type of tax and the marginal change in rates.   . . .

I see that you have moved the goal posts considerably.  How quickly you abandoned funding the tax cuts and replaced it with funding other things as if the money i earn belongs to the government by default.