Cruz Tax Plan Would Cost $8.6 trillion, Second Only to Trump

[digitusmedius]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...would-cost-8-6-trillion-second-only-to-trump/

Big question, as usual, is: are the American people really stupid enough to buy this snake oil for a 3rd time in the last 36 years? At least republicans don't even pretend to care about deficits and skyrocketing debt anymore although I'm sure they'll keep trying to get other people to think they do.

Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz’s plan to impose a flat 10 percent tax on all personal income and greatly lower the corporate tax rate would cost the federal government at least $8.6 trillion over a decade, according to a new analysis.

And, of course, there's always a sleight-of-hand in every republican promise of a middle class tax cut:

There would be a 16 percent flat business tax under Cruz’s proposal, which functions like an across-the-board consumption tax that would increase the amount workers are taxed by their employers. Those low-income workers who don’t make enough to file taxes wouldn’t benefit from the expanded standard deduction that is meant to offset the payroll-side increases.

 

[Fenton]

Yup,

We should vote for Bernie Sanders who wants to increase spending exponentially while simultaneously driving off new private sector investment with tax increases on " the Rich " ( Investors, Corporations and Bussineses )

If we're Lucky he'll push through Single Payer too.

Sure, his home State of Vermont had to scrap their plans for Single payer because it would have crushed their economy but who cares if its feasible or not

Its " free " ! Honestly, you folks on the left don't have allot room to criticize.

One of your Candidates is currently under a FBI Criminal investigation and the other is a economically illiterate avowed Socialist.

 

[Crovax]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...would-cost-8-6-trillion-second-only-to-trump/

Big question, as usual, is: are the American people really stupid enough to buy this snake oil for a 3rd time in the last 36 years? At least republicans don't even pretend to care about deficits and skyrocketing debt anymore although I'm sure they'll keep trying to get other people to think they do.




And, of course, there's always a sleight-of-hand in every republican promise of a middle class tax cut:

The only snake oil being peddled here is the notion that tax cuts "cost" anything, they can lower revenue but no actual cost is incurred by a tax cut. A completely disingenuous statement made by those with a little grasp on economic policy and even less grasp on mathematics.

 

[Erod]

Wrong.

Ted Cruz?s ?Business Flat Tax:? A Primer | Tax Foundation

Would This Kind of Tax Raise a Lot of Revenue?

Yes, it would. It’s a powerful tax that captures pretty much all of the income in the country. For one clear example of how powerful it is, it’s strictly larger than the payroll tax. A business transfer tax includes payroll and more. Furthermore, unlike the payroll tax under current law, a business transfer tax would not have a “cap” limiting the total amount that an individual can pay. As a result, it would be a much more powerful revenue raiser than the payroll tax, even at the same rate.

It would not be similar to existing sales taxes, or the VATs in Europe, because it would not be levied on a transaction-by-transaction basis. Be skeptical of analysis that assumes this tax would be like a sales tax, or that it wouldn’t apply to nonprofit salaries like mine, and so on.

 

[Casper]

The only snake oil being peddled here is the notion that tax cuts "cost" anything, they can lower revenue but no actual cost is incurred by a tax cut. A completely disingenuous statement made by those with a little grasp on economic policy and even less grasp on mathematics.

The problem is some believe your money is actually their money, yes it is a strange concept but some actually believe that nonsense.

 

[ocean515]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...would-cost-8-6-trillion-second-only-to-trump/

Big question, as usual, is: are the American people really stupid enough to buy this snake oil for a 3rd time in the last 36 years? At least republicans don't even pretend to care about deficits and skyrocketing debt anymore although I'm sure they'll keep trying to get other people to think they do.




And, of course, there's always a sleight-of-hand in every republican promise of a middle class tax cut:

Perhaps these Socialist Progressive think tanks can explain how lower tax revenues "cost" the government anything.

I'm not a proponent of a flat tax, but the never ending blather from the left about tax cuts "costing the government" is ridiculous. The confirmation that people are stupid enough to believe such nonsense remains an uncomfortable reality of the times.

 

[kamikaze483]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...would-cost-8-6-trillion-second-only-to-trump/

Big question, as usual, is: are the American people really stupid enough to buy this snake oil for a 3rd time in the last 36 years? At least republicans don't even pretend to care about deficits and skyrocketing debt anymore although I'm sure they'll keep trying to get other people to think they do.




And, of course, there's always a sleight-of-hand in every republican promise of a middle class tax cut:

I'm sure that that model did not predict an increase in GDP as a result of the cuts based on the Laffer curve.

 

[MrT]

Wrong.

Ted Cruz?s ?Business Flat Tax:? A Primer | Tax Foundation

Why do I have a tendency to believe the findings of the Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center over the Tax Foundation? Perhaps this column from Forbes would help to explain: Forbes Welcome

Here is the wikipedia article for Tax Foundation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation

And for Brookings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Policy_Center

I find it interesting that the Tax Foundation has a section devoted to criticisms.

 

[Grant]

Yup,

We should vote for Bernie Sanders who wants to increase spending exponentially while simultaneously driving off new private sector investment with tax increases on " the Rich " ( Investors, Corporations and Bussineses )

If we're Lucky he'll push through Single Payer too.

Sure, his home State of Vermont had to scrap their plans for Single payer because it would have crushed their economy but who cares if its feasible or not

Its " free " ! Honestly, you folks on the left don't have allot room to criticize.

One of your Candidates is currently under a FBI Criminal investigation and the other is a economically illiterate avowed Socialist.

Price Tag of Bernie Sanders?s Proposals: $18 Trillion - WSJ

 

[MrT]

I'm sure that that model did not predict an increase in GDP as a result of the cuts based on the Laffer curve.

The Laffer Curve, if I understand it correctly, merely refers to the revenue obtained based on the tax rate and argues that there is a sweet spot at which the government can obtain the maximum amount of revenue while setting the tax rate neither too high, nor too low. And furthermore, it appears that the maximum rate is around 70% based on the academic research. And generally, economists have found little support for the claim that tax cuts increase tax revenues or that most taxes are on the "wrong side" of the Laffer curve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

 

[Fenton]

I'm sure that that model did not predict an increase in GDP as a result of the cuts based on the Laffer curve.

I think the left calls that " trickle down ".

They oppose on principle any strategies that inventize Private sector investment and that includes Tax cuts.

No they think you grow economies by increasing taxes, increasing Govt spending...debt ( Stimulus to increase aggregate demand ) increasing the regulatory burden on bussineses, inflating energy prices, growing the Public sector, empowering Unions and mandates on private bussineses that increase their cost and that Ofcourse includes a higher minimum wage.

They're absolutely lost when it comes to growing market based economies successfully.

" Trickle down " doesnt work but stimulus does .....Lol

 

[Helix]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...would-cost-8-6-trillion-second-only-to-trump/

Big question, as usual, is: are the American people really stupid enough to buy this snake oil for a 3rd time in the last 36 years? At least republicans don't even pretend to care about deficits and skyrocketing debt anymore although I'm sure they'll keep trying to get other people to think they do.

And, of course, there's always a sleight-of-hand in every republican promise of a middle class tax cut:

trickle down 3.0 Vista edition is brought to you by Peanuts :

 

[MrT]

The only snake oil being peddled here is the notion that tax cuts "cost" anything, they can lower revenue but no actual cost is incurred by a tax cut. A completely disingenuous statement made by those with a little grasp on economic policy and even less grasp on mathematics.

That complaint has zero to do with knowledge of economic policy or mathematics and everything to do with ideological grandstanding. The word "cost" here is obviously a reference to the decrease in total revenue available to the government in order to continue financing projects at it's current rates. If you don't like the word, it is because you are ideologically opposed to the notion that the Government cuts are a bad thing.

If you prefer, we could just note that Cruz's plan would add huge sums to the national debt.

 

[MrT]

I think the left calls that " trickle down ".

They oppose on principle any strategies that inventize Private sector investment and that includes Tax cuts.

No they think you grow economies by increasing taxes, increasing Govt spending...debt ( Stimulus to increase aggregate demand ) increasing the regulatory burden on bussineses, inflating energy prices, growing the Public sector, empowering Unions and mandates on private bussineses that increase their cost and that Ofcourse includes a higher minimum wage.

They're absolutely lost when it comes to growing market based economies successfully.

" Trickle down " doesnt work but stimulus does .....Lol

I would point to the past few years of performance for the EU compared to the United States as some evidence to support your final assertion.

 

[Visbek]

The only snake oil being peddled here is the notion that tax cuts "cost" anything, they can lower revenue but no actual cost is incurred by a tax cut. A completely disingenuous statement made by those with a little grasp on economic policy and even less grasp on mathematics.

OK then

Ted Cruz's tax plan will slash federal tax revenues by $8.6 trillion over 10 years, and $12.2 trillion the decade after that.

His plan is pretty much insane. Apparently, he proposes:
• 10% flat tax on income
• kill payroll taxes
• eliminating almost every deduction and credit
• add a value-added tax of 16%, which he denies is a VAT
• repeal AMT

This will cut everyone's taxes but -- SURPRISE!!! -- most of the tax cuts go to, wait for it... the wealthy and the corporations! Wow. I didn't see that one coming.

It is -- SURPRISE!!! -- based off of the thoroughly debunked theory that cutting taxes will spur growth. It's patently absurd, since the wealthy have massive amounts of surplus capital at their disposal, and hoard it rather than spend it; when they already can buy pretty much whatever they want. The complimentary theory is that corporations will be sparked to invest more when their taxes are lower -- another ridiculous theory, given that corporate profits have been on a tear for several years in a row; that companies are sitting on record cash hoards; that credit has been dirt cheap (and with tax credits) for years now; that tax credits aren't encouraging them to invest.

Back when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, or if effective corporate taxes were anywhere near their statutory rates, cutting taxes can make sense. We aren't, so it doesn't. It's a massive sop to the rich and to corporations. I.e. a typical Republican tax plan. Yeesh.

 

[Crovax]

That complaint has zero to do with knowledge of economic policy or mathematics and everything to do with ideological grandstanding. The word "cost" here is obviously a reference to the decrease in total revenue available to the government in order to continue financing projects at it's current rates. If you don't like the word, it is because you are ideologically opposed to the notion that the Government cuts are a bad thing.

The only ideological grandstanding is those using "cost" to describe something that does not incur a cost.

If you prefer, we could just note that Cruz's plan would add huge sums to the national debt.

While thats certainly a possibility its not for sure as lower rates can still produce the same amount of revenue and spending can be reduced.

 

[Visbek]

Oh, and for those who haven't done the math yet:

To avoid causing further increases to the deficit, we'd have to slash $860 billion per year from federal outlays. Based on 2015 figures ($3.8 trillion), that means somewhere around a 20% cut to federal expenditures.

Good luck figuring out what to cut.

 

[Crovax]

OK then

Ted Cruz's tax plan will slash federal tax revenues by $8.6 trillion over 10 years, and $12.2 trillion the decade after that.

His plan is pretty much insane. Apparently, he proposes:
• 10% flat tax on income
• kill payroll taxes
• eliminating almost every deduction and credit
• add a value-added tax of 16%, which he denies is a VAT
• repeal AMT

This will cut everyone's taxes but -- SURPRISE!!! -- most of the tax cuts go to, wait for it... the wealthy and the corporations! Wow. I didn't see that one coming.

It is -- SURPRISE!!! -- based off of the thoroughly debunked theory that cutting taxes will spur growth. It's patently absurd, since the wealthy have massive amounts of surplus capital at their disposal, and hoard it rather than spend it; when they already can buy pretty much whatever they want. The complimentary theory is that corporations will be sparked to invest more when their taxes are lower -- another ridiculous theory, given that corporate profits have been on a tear for several years in a row; that companies are sitting on record cash hoards; that credit has been dirt cheap (and with tax credits) for years now; that tax credits aren't encouraging them to invest.

Back when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, or if effective corporate taxes were anywhere near their statutory rates, cutting taxes can make sense. We aren't, so it doesn't. It's a massive sop to the rich and to corporations. I.e. a typical Republican tax plan. Yeesh.

Yes Cruz's plan is a disaster, but lets at least be honest about it

 

[SocialD]

The Laffer Curve, if I understand it correctly, merely refers to the revenue obtained based on the tax rate and argues that there is a sweet spot at which the government can obtain the maximum amount of revenue while setting the tax rate neither too high, nor too low. And furthermore, it appears that the maximum rate is around 70% based on the academic research. And generally, economists have found little support for the claim that tax cuts increase tax revenues or that most taxes are on the "wrong side" of the Laffer curve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

And that would be all well and good if your goal was to take as much money from the people as possible. but the purpose of taxation is to gather enough money pay for governments responsibility to the people, and no more.
As far as the tax cuts increase revenues, there is plenty of evidence. You wont find it if you only listen to economists who are against it though.

 

[OpportunityCost]

OK then

Ted Cruz's tax plan will slash federal tax revenues by $8.6 trillion over 10 years, and $12.2 trillion the decade after that.

His plan is pretty much insane. Apparently, he proposes:
• 10% flat tax on income
• kill payroll taxes
• eliminating almost every deduction and credit
• add a value-added tax of 16%, which he denies is a VAT
• repeal AMT

This will cut everyone's taxes but -- SURPRISE!!! -- most of the tax cuts go to, wait for it... the wealthy and the corporations! Wow. I didn't see that one coming.

It is -- SURPRISE!!! -- based off of the thoroughly debunked theory that cutting taxes will spur growth. It's patently absurd, since the wealthy have massive amounts of surplus capital at their disposal, and hoard it rather than spend it; when they already can buy pretty much whatever they want. The complimentary theory is that corporations will be sparked to invest more when their taxes are lower -- another ridiculous theory, given that corporate profits have been on a tear for several years in a row; that companies are sitting on record cash hoards; that credit has been dirt cheap (and with tax credits) for years now; that tax credits aren't encouraging them to invest.

Back when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, or if effective corporate taxes were anywhere near their statutory rates, cutting taxes can make sense. We aren't, so it doesn't. It's a massive sop to the rich and to corporations. I.e. a typical Republican tax plan. Yeesh.

I have seen it argued here that the average corporate tax paid is only 16% with loopholes and whatnot. So if they pay a 16% VAT and a 10% flat tax, how are they paying less?

Please reconcile the two arguments for me.

PS I know it will prove ruinous to Jackson Hewitt, H&R Block and the IRS, seems like a win-win to me!

 

[cpwill]

Senator Cruz’s plan would cut taxes by $3.6 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $768 billion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital and the much broader tax base due to the new value-added tax.

So.... no. Not 8.6 Trillion over the next decade :roll:

 

[Socrates1]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...would-cost-8-6-trillion-second-only-to-trump/

Big question, as usual, is: are the American people really stupid enough to buy this snake oil for a 3rd time in the last 36 years? At least republicans don't even pretend to care about deficits and skyrocketing debt anymore although I'm sure they'll keep trying to get other people to think they do.




And, of course, there's always a sleight-of-hand in every republican promise of a middle class tax cut:

What are the democrats offering ? Bernie 19 plus trillion !!! Why is it so hard for libs to understand taxes drive businesses AWAY ! What has NAFTA and the new and improved TPP gotten American workers ? We are seeing more and more businesses setting up shop in tax friendly Countries . Democrats are wasting trillions on programs that do nothing but enable more and more lazy couch zombies . Just look at what the democrats have to offer as their BEST and brightest ; Hiliary and Bernie , one happens to be a liar and criminal and the other an angry old commie . My God !:roll:

 

[kamikaze483]

The Laffer Curve, if I understand it correctly, merely refers to the revenue obtained based on the tax rate and argues that there is a sweet spot at which the government can obtain the maximum amount of revenue while setting the tax rate neither too high, nor too low. And furthermore, it appears that the maximum rate is around 70% based on the academic research. And generally, economists have found little support for the claim that tax cuts increase tax revenues or that most taxes are on the "wrong side" of the Laffer curve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Yes. That is the Laffer Curve in a nutshell. However, if taxes are too high now, and they were lowered and consolidated across the board as it seems that Cruz's plan provides for, the question is (and whether or not you believe this is true will probably be based on your politics) what would people and corporations due with the tax savings?

Would they hoard the money? Or would they use it to make more money? If they use it to make more money, then GDP would increase... and the model that does not provide for an increase in GDP would be wrong.

It's all a matter of what you believe that businesses would do with tax savings. Will they invest the money, producing more jobs and more production, or would they keep it all for their greedy selves? I tend to think business is business. The more money that businesses make, the more the GDP will increase- and the more money the government would make in total of smaller percentages.

 

[rocket88]

Yup,

We should vote for Bernie Sanders who wants to increase spending exponentially while simultaneously driving off new private sector investment with tax increases on " the Rich " ( Investors, Corporations and Bussineses )

If we're Lucky he'll push through Single Payer too.

Sure, his home State of Vermont had to scrap their plans for Single payer because it would have crushed their economy but who cares if its feasible or not

Its " free " ! Honestly, you folks on the left don't have allot room to criticize.

One of your Candidates is currently under a FBI Criminal investigation and the other is a economically illiterate avowed Socialist.

Deflect! Deflect!

 

[rocket88]

Senator Cruz’s plan would cut taxes by $3.6 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $768 billion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital and the much broader tax base due to the new value-added tax.

So.... no. Not 8.6 Trillion over the next decade :roll:

Still, I think that we're talking about a lot of money even if the numbers don't add up to 8.6 trillion.