Trump Tax Policy Discussion Thread

I know Sup Forums is being attacked to eliminate discussion but let's fight back. Can we have a thread where we legitimately discuss how tax policy should be, and whether Trump's plan makes sense?

>be me
>writing paper on tax policy
>start with Trump tax plan to assess situation
>"Trump's tax plan has 4 goals - tax relief for middle class americans, simplify the tax code, grow the american economy, avoid adding to debt and deficit"
>let's check out the current tax code and what we should do to simplify it
>holy mother of fuck, """tax expenditures""" are what (((we))) call it when anyone lowers their taxes
>of these, there are several that have limited the amount of revenue the gov has received by appealing to smarter, more savvy citizens who can afford (((accountants))) to help them navigate the winding web of ever changing tax law
>inherently anti-american because they do not have mass applicability
>also trump wants to have a repatriation of foreign funds "holiday," allowing $2.6 trillion stored offshore to be returned to our economy
>articles worrying that the last "holiday" only repatriated a minuscule quantity as many of the assets are in hard equipment for manufacturing, etc.
>"Drumpf BTFO Again!"

how does anyone economically assess viability and success of any tax policy, with there being a built-in delay between implementation and results? is economic analysis of tax policy a meme? is this why lolbertarians are blanket "all taxation is theft"?

Will Trump's tax policy cause higher deficits like (((economists))) contend? or will the GDP growth and greater pool of taxpayers offset the tax cuts as he says?

And what of the Laffer curve? where does it really peak? pls help Sup Forums

Tax and regulation is why there is debt. Tax relief will further increase debt because the current economic system is based too heavily on tax revenue and gibs. So they're will inevitably be an adjustment period. But when tax relief starts to finally fuel economic growth it won't matter because socialists will be voted in and will raise taxes again. The problem is democracy.

retarded graph

but what tax relief fuels economic growth the best? how should we direct our weaponized shitposting to the best possible ends for economic prosperity in our time?

>perpetually betrayed and btfo on every policy that actually matters
>l-lets t-talk about t-taxes guys

>"taxes don't matter"
>t. libcuck

just the level of discourse befitting your ideology bitch nigger

K. Y?

When you can start a business without being buttraped by the government then people are free to experiment with ways to monetize autism

The USA dollar is backed by oil and pizza... and will crumble when the world sees the video in the life insurance folder

sure, but that's a big "if'

tax policy in the short term means fuck all if immigration and foreign policy doesn't change.
>continue to import billions of low iq non-white immigrant "workers"
>continue destabilizing entire regions of the world
>heh oops now look at all these refugees better let em all in
>also better let em all vote
>don't worry if you just tell them about Ayn Rand they'll be touched by the invisible hand and support private roads in no time
this faggot president has cucked on every issue of immediate importance and now his faggot supporters want to talk about the marginal amount of shekels he's going to allow them to keep lmao

I said when

Because its a projection from before Trump had a tax policy formally drafted and proposed.

Watch Milton Friedman VS Bill Clinton. Pay attention to the tax part.

so what does your analysis of the formal policy tell you? that's what im asking, even if my original pic was outdated

Graphs that omit the X and Y axis are almost always trying to push misinformation.

While the tax code is a gigantic mess, one should be wary about the information on both sides about this issue, since (((certain people))) stand to lose millions, billions and maybe even trillions when their loopholes are cut.

>we are currently at 75% gdp
?????

look at the bottom

>assumes no interest rate or macroeconomic response

don't let (((them))) pull one over on you, user

I believe that this refers to how much is added to the debt each year.

I.E. If you took in 1 trillion in a year, you'd spend 1.75 trillion

yeh alright, the graph is fucked, fine. FWIW it's pointing out what the debt:GDP ratio is projected at, but im well aware that they have their own nefarious ends.
my question is: how can i assess the quality of trump's plan? is reducing loopholes for the rich plus theoretically adding a greater pool of employed taxpayers going to offset the loss from lowering the rates?

Lower taxes will help the economy, but not enough to "pay for itself." Deficit will increase.

It's hard to get "tax relief for the middle class" because payroll taxes are the main source of revenue for programs people really like like social security and Medicare, and income taxes are heavily subsidiezed anyway with earned income tax credits, mortgage deductions, etc. the average middle class family isn't paying that much in taxes that can be cut.

Simplifying the tax code would be beneficial theoretically, but the reason the tax code is so complex in the first place is to give everyone tax relief for political purposes. What counts as income, reporting losses, what counts as a business, subsidies, credits, and brackets have been designed to appeal to certain constituencies. For many Americans, "simplifying" the tax code straight up means a tax increase because they don't get to take advantage of the tax code like they could before. Even with tax cuts generally, many industries that rely on very generous tax policies (ex: real estate) will take a financial hit, which may disrupt the economy as a whole as industries used to preferential treatment see their taxes go up.

Tl;dr Trumps policies are theoretically good, but the scope is politically unfeasible as it would disproportionately affect powerful industry groups, disrupt major industries, add to the deficit, and also be seen as a giveaway to corporations.

>is reducing loopholes for the rich plus theoretically adding a greater pool of employed taxpayers going to offset the loss from lowering the rates?
It depends on the size of those loopholes. IIRC, the percentage of people paying income tax under Obama was at an all time low of 49%. Increased income from more people paying would help, however people just don't like paying taxes period, due to the feel of getting nothing in return.
Trump is also in a unique position that he not only knows the loopholes that are used to evade taxation due to having used a number of them himself, but can close them, which would cause less of a strain on the economy, such as certain corporations pulling in record profits but also having a negative tax rate so high they pull in multiple billions from the US gov.

this is substantive, just what i was looking for

what if we made a "hard reset" on tax policy? stop subsidizing everything? the more i've dug into this today, the more i've learned how little i knew before. it seems no matter what policy is enacted and what subsidies made available, (((people))) find ways around them to the detriment of objective fairness. in my overwhelmed state, the only remedy i can come up with is elimination of anything other than a simplified list of tax brackets with no exclusions, deductions, or smoke and mirrors.

>obsessed with stormcuck shit
>not concerned about taxes
You've never worked a day in your life, have you? Don't get me wrong, I want him to kick the illegals out and pull his pencil dick out of Syria as much as the next goy, but if you actually think taxes don't matter, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you're an early 20's NEET who gets all your information on the way the world works from Sup Forums, TRS, and maybe The Daily Stormer. How's that? Am I close?

same question here:Which loopholes are important and how do we "measure" their size, since that was what you said is what the successful offset depends upon?

I know what you're referring to, with the percentage of people paying taxes being at an all time low, as well as "corporate welfare" that leftists love to screech about, but im having trouble articulating my points within my paper. Once you start down the path of assessing quality of various deductions, credits, etc., it's damn near impossible to separate them and judge them on their merits individually. How can we tell if the ones Trump has picked are the ones we want?

If he does in fact close off loopholes for the rich, then people that get loopholes will be back up in the 35% tax bracket and will be giving much more money to the government; however it's unlikely that that actually happens because to get people even on his side to vote for it he'll have to leave in some loopholes because the super-rich line the pockets of the people in congress. Our men and women in congress still don't represent our interests, they still represent (((their))) interest, and Trump still has to play ball with them.

To assess the quality of it yourself, you'd probably have to already have a decent knowledge of what loopholes there are and read the bill yourself when it comes out. For now, though, you'll have to just go off what makes sense will happen, which I think what I outlined above makes sense enough. Even assuming that he doesn't close off many loopholes, the trade deals that he's made and will make as well as more tax leniency for the middle class, closing the death tax, and other stuff will reinvigorate the economy. We won't see some massive economic boom unless we get out from under the boot of the (((banks))), esp. the Fed. Reserve. Always remember that. The banks are the greatest tool they use against freedom and self-determination.

FYI it's late for me so sorry for the bad writing, exams and what not. The basic premise of what I'm saying should be clear enough.

yes of course, within my research today the (((banks))) were mentioned, as monetary policy was listed as one of the three pillars of government's means of affecting the economy. I'm well aware that (((they))) have had a large impact on the dollar through quantitative easing and petrodollar arrangements () but this whole business of the tax code itself is a circuitous mess. I'm looking to build my skill in refuting what the (((debunkers))) have to say about Trump's tax plan, as any coverage of it typically follows the format
>Trump says that his plan will be paid for because of more eligible working tax payers and economic growth
>but most (((economists))) we've asked agree that it won't
>97% of them in fact agree, just like global warming, isn't that a funny (((coincidence))) :^)

and as i'm trying to go against the tide with my research, i know i have to have it be pretty airtight. my research has led me to wonder whether economics itself isnt comprised of too much voodoo and imprecision to be actually useful. I know keynesians and austrians have always debated the role of government spending in "helping" the economy, but it's to the point where one could spend a lifetime digging and still have a tough time "solving" the problem

Good luck user

I don't have that much dedication to debate these kikes. I just use a logical argument and if they're not willing to accept that then I just walk away. Not worth my time I guess. Same with the holohoax, I don't have time to reasearch it because I'm reading more general philosophy and political theory and history. But if you know your shit you should easily be able to BTFO these people if they're using faulty data and leftspeak to begin with.

Let us not forget where this snowball started, and which party is spending the money.

>Assumes... no other macroeconomic response

So they're assuming with a tax overhaul, there would be no macroeconomic response.

That sounds like what will happen, I'm going to use this graph to predict the future. Time to bet millions of dollars on this prediction

is spending going to be cut? I don't want another Dubya situation

got anything more recent than fucking 2011?

also, im curious the methodology for deriving those (((figures)))... got a source on how they quantified the impact of "LE EBIL BUSH TAX CUTS"?

Also "assumes no offsetting spending cuts" kek, gonna have to pry the shekels from their cold, dead hands

...