Data Point – Differences between the Senate and House Tax Reform bills

by Skip

TaxBillComparison4

(H/T: The Daily Signal)

Leave a Comment

  • Nick Martin

    What, no row for how much it will contribute to the deficit? For all of the years crowing about the national debt — using it as an excuse to oppose anything — Republicans have been strangely silent about it lately.

    • Bryan W

      IF THEY HOLD THE LINE ON SPENDING (cutting spending by 10% would be ideal), the economy will start a growth curve that will more than make up for the initial deficits. If history is used as a guide, it will take 3-5 years to fully see the effects, and 10 years out the growth will be obvious to all except those who refuse to see.

      The CBO refuses for some reason to use a dynamic model to predict these things so they are just about always wrong.

      There are many many things I would change about this – for all the Democrat crowing about how people will die, this actually raises net taxes. I would do an across the board cut.

      • Nick Martin

        I’ve heard that theory. I’ve also seen lots of reports that previous tax cuts have failed to stimulate the economy enough to offset revenue deficits. I’d love to see evidence that it actually works — not just politicians telling us it “should” work. This isn’t a partisan thing for me. If it works as they claim, I’m all for it. But I’ve seen no evidence to support it.

        You don’t have to look very far for evidence that tax cuts don’t always equate to economic growth — the Bush cuts are one example. And, there are a lot of other factors that could affect the larger economy. Suppose some other factor (something akin to the housing bubble) drags us down. Then what?

        • Bryan W

          Bear in mind that while there is much (MUCH!) I disagree with in this tax bill, I would support it for some of the reforms it makes. It’s a net plus, but we could have done much much better. It looks to me like a tax increase for the rich.

          To your question, I say that’s fair enough. Here is Heritage’s analysis of the Reagan Tax Cuts:

          Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.

          Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.

          As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.

          You can read the rest here: http://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-real-reagan-economic-record-responsible-and-successful-fiscal-policy

          The big caveat in all this is the rate of spending. Congress – it doesn’t matter if controlled by D or R – has failed to control spending in any responsible way. I don’t care where you are on the political spectrum, the belief that we can borrow our way into the future is simply not sustainable. Eventually, something will happen which will cause the economy, and hence the ability to borrow, to tip over, and the gravy train will end. I would rather have the country’s fiscal house in order before that happens.

  • mrwonderful

    Yeah – but, a) I will no longer be able to write off school supplies which I purchase myself. and, b) I will no longer be able to write off the exorbitant property taxes on my home.

    • granitegrok

      This is our budget season and one of the subcomittees I’m on just did the Middle School. The numbers were over $2 million (VERY rough cut on this) for the adults (wages and salaries) and only a tad over $106K for stuff I could directly attribute to the kids (text books, school supplies, uniforms, et al). So the kids only get about 5% of the money – the rest is going to the union(s).

      So, get the unions to take a bit less (even a just a couple of percentage points) and you’d have PLENTY for school supplies. After all, we taxpayers have to give up a lot, too!

      Sorry, I’m tired of all the loopholes for all of the special interest groups, including teachers. No deductions!

      Well, if your property taxes are exorbitant, you can DO something about it – stop with the raises that keep going up and up for ever! Schools are about 70% labor costs and towns are 50-65% labor costs. Plus doing a lot of buying and building. You want lower taxes?? Get involved on a board or committee that can have an effect on your town’s budget and start slicing.

      That’s about the only way to get lower taxes – less spending.

      • mrwonderful

        Gee . . . what an astute observation . . . wages and salaries make up the biggest part of the budget. You mean like most every other institution? And your comment that “the rest is going to the unions” is not true. Are you saying that the money that I bring home every two weeks in my paycheck is “going to the unions?” No it’s not – it’s going to ME. And if you’re really tired of loopholes – what about all the corporate welfare? And there’s another way to get lower taxes – we could have an income or property tax AND LOWER our property taxes. We’d have more revenue and we’d be taxed in a more fair manner.

        • granitegrok

          Not every institution – for instance, in a lot of heavy, capital intensive industries, labor is one of the smaller parts of the cost structure.

          It certainly is going to the teachers union – that’s the major cost unit for our Middle School. And only 5% directly to the kids.

          I’m fine with eliminating all directed money to corporations – eliminate them all. Free market and all that. The only subsidy I’d consider is for national defense as that is a Constitutional mandate to the government.

          No! Instituting an income tax and keeping property taxes has worked SO well for NJ.

          And NO! An income is not fair as Progressives, acting like Socialists, is used to go after “the Rich”. Again, look what happened to NJ when that rich hedge fund manager moved – the NJ budget was out of whack by $100M. Progressives don’t respect the Right to Private Property.

    • granitegrok

      You also forget that the standard deduction is going to go way up and so is the child credit.

      Your lament is the biggest way that government cost ALL OVER will go down as it is going to hit your wallet. Can’t get the deduction? Make your town costs such that it won’t matter.

      • Radical Moderate

        Agree 110% with your assessment. The only problem is that the layabouts that have nothing but time on their hands and have a swarm of kids don’t pay in to the system and get free healthcare on top of it also get that child credit as well. What they should do is use the child credit against the layabouts tax drain. That would be the fair and equitable thing to do.

    • Radical Moderate

      Or…you can have the school purchase the supplies as they historically have up until the late 1970’s when our government started to import families from the third world who never contributed to the property tax base.
      Or…you can sell your home and move into one of those shoe box apartments in the city that the Liberals that want to re-wild the suburbs want us all to live in.
      Unfortunately you may have a problem convincing your landlord to let you have your 14 cats 😉

      • granitegrok

        Thanks! Actually, Mrwonderful could also sell his current house and “manage his taxes” by then buying a small home or in a lower cost locale. NH Progressives HATE this idea, though, as they believe that the Rich are cheating by not buying the homes they should that invoke more taxes. The reason for them demanding an income tax is exactly due to this.

        When I purchased my home 30 years ago, I bought much less house than I could actually afford because I wanted to lessen the taxes I would pay. For this, Progressives call me “selfish” and not willing to “contribute” more to their version of “the common good”.

        • mrwonderful

          Dude – My wife and I live in a house that’s less than we can actually afford already. We did the same thing you did. And I’d be fine living in a lower cost locale but my wife wouldn’t because that’s synonymous with “more rural” and “further from downtown Concord” which I’d be fine with but she wouldn’t. And it’s not that I mind supporting the Concord schools even though we don’t have kids – I understand that “taxes suck but they pay for stuff” and I like paying for good schools because I don’t want to live in a world of stupid people.

          • granitegrok

            Sorry, but your entire answer says “I will pay higher taxes”. Decisions have consequences no matter the reasoning behind those decisions. You’ve made a tough trade off – happy wife, thinner wallet. A lot of us might well have made the same decision but it IS a decision and it ends up with higher taxes.

            Unfortunately, Concord is a Progressive / Democrat town and spending is what they do most of the time – unless you get in there and stop it.

          • granitegrok

            BTW, go review the case study of Kansas City where a judge forced them to spend beaucoup bucks. (https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.pdf)

            Spending LOTS of money does NOT mean you get rid of stupid people. Spending lots of money with no better results does mean, however, that stupid people made a real expensive mistake.

          • sb

            I challenge that because some of the most educated people I know are also some of the most stupid. Go figure.

Previous post:

Next post: