Op-ed: New tax plan is built on little more than faith

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 15, 2017 11:45 a.m.

    To "Gary O" so let me get this right. You are denying historical evidence showing that Keynes was wrong.

    Actually, we got out of the Great Depression once Republicans got a backbone and CUT spending. FDR kept us in the depression 7 years longer than we should have been in it.

    Keep denying history, you will only end up repeating it.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Nov. 15, 2017 10:33 a.m.

    Hey RedShirtHarvard -

    "Historically when taxes AND spending are cut you improve the economy. '

    Pure baloney.

    High government spending improves the economy, but of course, it too can reach a point of diminishing returns, where it's not viable.

    That's how we got out of the Great Depression . . . Government spending.

    The WPA, the CCC and other initiatives put millions of young men to work building infrastructure. And our huge investment in WWII put millions more back to work.

    After WWII, we were left with a huge wartime manufacturing infrastructure that we quickly converted to other uses, and being unscathed by the war, America was positioned to dominate the world in manufacturing.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Nov. 15, 2017 6:38 a.m.

    To 'GaryO" that is nice what Keynes thinks about the economy. However, he is wrong. Marx also thought he knew something about the economy, and he is wrong too.

    How do I know that they are wrong? Simple, history. Historically when taxes AND spending are cut you improve the economy. Plus, if you look at actual data, not misguided theories, you find that the higher the actual taxes that the citizens pay, the worse their economy is.

    To "Shaun" actually the Republican plan will reduce taxes for everybody. NK and Venezuela are examples of trickle UP economics. Yes they cut taxes for the poor, but then they dumped taxes on the wealthy. The wealthy left, businesses collapsed and now their countries are starving. Trickle up economics starts at the poor, and if the middle class is lucky they will get some benefit.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Nov. 14, 2017 8:06 p.m.

    Hey Redshirt

    Re: “You ignore the fact that "trickle down" economics actually works. It worked for Coolige, JFK, Reagan, the country of Chile, and countless other times when it has been tried.”

    No, not really.

    Keynesian economics says that lowering taxes does stimulate the economy, but it reaches a point of diminishing returns where it doesn’t work well. We are now beyond that point.

    It worked for JFK because he reduced the highest-earner income tax rate from around 90% down to around 70%. That helped the economy. But now the high tax rate is down to around 39%, and reducing it won’t do much except guarantee soaring budget deficits and a quick doubling of the debt.

    The Reagan economy boomed largely because the price of world oil plummeted to 1/3 its former high. Low energy prices stimulate the economy like nothing else. If you plot economic growth against the price of world oil, you can see how recessions follow spikes in oil prices and recoveries often follow decreases in oil prices.

    We should focus on developing cheap alternative energy sources.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 14, 2017 2:11 p.m.

    why don't you tell us what the Democrat tax plan is? But we allready know -- RAISE our taxes. So we have the GOP plan which (according to you is little more than faith ) but it is a BIG tax cut. Then we have the guaranteed Democrat plan of jacking up our taxes. If you ask Bernie Sanders and his new single payer health plan the middle class --those in the 40-120K bracket would be paying around 70% in taxes. So a little perspective here helps.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Nov. 14, 2017 1:07 p.m.

    @redshirtharvard

    I am not getting a 4k tax cut because the tax cut plan is geared for the rich and Republicans try to argue that it will benefit me somehow with a trickle-down theory.

    You know what would actually benefit the middle class? A tax cut for the middle class. Republicans try to sell this idea that the rich will take that money and use it to create more jobs. However, there is zero proof that will happen or if it does happen that it will benefit the economy enough to account for the loss of revenue.

    So instead of giving a tax cut to the rich and hope it gets to the middle class, lets cut out the middleman and just give the tax cut to the middle class. Give me my 4k of my 9k back and call it a day.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 14, 2017 12:31 p.m.

    @TeachyMcTeacherPants 1:28
    RE: "I just don't see how we can be talking about tax cuts AT ALL when our deficit is so high"...
    ---
    Likewise R's couldn't see how we could talk about spending increases at all during Obama Admin, when our deficit was high and growing (he doubled our defecit).

    Numerous Stimulus spending programs, expanding entitlement programs (medicaid expansion, SNAP expansion, etc). It's the same argument. Both make sense (not just one).

    You shouldn't cut revenue when you have a huge deficit. You also shouldn't expand spending when you have a huge deficit. Make sense to you TeachyMcTeacherPants?

    Obama pushed medicaid expansion,added nearly 4.2 million new enrollees from October through March 2014 (and still adding). Somebody has to pay for those benefits.

    In 2009, less than 32 million people received SNAP benefits. Number increased to 47.6 million by 2013.

    ===

    Are Republicans the party of fiscal responsibility or not?
    ---
    Not.

    Look at what happens when R's are elected (same thing as when D's are in charge... debt increases, just a little slower).

    ===

    RE: "Ryan is full of baloney"...
    ---
    Actually he's very smart.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 14, 2017 12:02 p.m.

    Here's the trick Redshirt..you have to pay attention to your own question?

    What country has taxed itself into prosperity? You didn't say increased it's taxes to prosperity?

    The natural response is what country had high taxes and achieved prosperity, and of course America is one of those places. Just because circumstances change and lower taxes are justified doesn't mean the higher taxes weren't justified at the time.

    We most definitely taxed ourselves into prosperity with high average, and marginal rates in the middle part of the last century.

    But as I said before this is a red herring. The point now is that the GOP tax plan will do none of the things it says it will do because of the circumstances now.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Nov. 14, 2017 11:58 a.m.

    To "Shaun" who says you have to buy things from rich people? With an extra $4,000 you could invest that money. You could put it into a an IRA account. You could spend that money at a small business near your home. You can put that money into a HSA so that you can have more money for medical needs. You can do whatever you want with it. But at the end of the day you can say what you spent it on.

    Look at the alternative. You can let the government take $4000 more of you money. What would that do for your budget? Would it make your life easier to be paying more money in taxes? What would you have to show for it?

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Nov. 14, 2017 11:44 a.m.

    @redshirtharvard.

    So you are saying giving the middle class all of this tax cut will make this country like NK or Venezuela?

    So what you are saying is giving me a 4K reduction in income taxes so I have more money to buy stuff from rich people is not only going to make my life worst but also the rich.

    I don't think anyone would agree with your argument.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Nov. 14, 2017 10:14 a.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife " again, wrong. If you look at a graph of US GDP increases and compare that to the tax burden you see that as taxes increase that GDP increases have dropped.

    You are wrong. Try again, maybe you can find some data this time.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 14, 2017 8:41 a.m.

    Sorry Libs, but I think some got caught in the usual conservative bait and switch. A conversation about tax cuts turns to an argument about raising taxes.

    It starts with Redshirts..can you name a country that has taxed itself into prosperity? Not the issue here and far too complicated for 200 words. However simple answer yes, America.

    The first aha, one gets in an economics graduate school program is the complexity of taxes. Taxes are a tool, and a weapon, for anything and anybody.

    Sorry 2bits there are no natural laws that govern a free-market. Only policies and people. You may try the book, Behavioral Economics for Dummies. It combines economic policy with actual human behavior to give a clue as to what humans are actually inclined to do. BTW the foundation is humans are not rational, so while a bigger pay check may "give" you more money to spend, it doesn't mean you will spend it.

    I don't have any technical training in economic theories... but that one is pretty obvious (if your pay check is bigger... you have more to spend).

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Nov. 14, 2017 7:01 a.m.

    To "Shaun" name the country that has ever had trickle economics work.

    Venezuela tried it. They think it is like Disneyland because the lines for food are so long.

    In Russia they tried it, and lived just barely better than a 3rd world country for 70 years.

    North Korea has been trying it, and the people there are not doing that great.

    Everywhere the trickle up economics has been tried you have ended up with dictators and tyrants.

    To "SG in SLC" and what do you think happens when you invest money with a financial institution? They use that money to buy stocks or give loans to businesses. Those stocks and loans help businesses grow. When businesses grow they need more employees. The lower the unemployment rate, the higher the wages go.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 14, 2017 6:02 a.m.

    Redshirt when has a country taxed itself into prosperity? Try Bill Clinton's tax increase. When has trickle down worked for middle class? Never.

  • TeachyMcTeacherPants Sandy, UT
    Nov. 14, 2017 1:28 a.m.

    I just don't see how we can be talking about tax cuts AT ALL when our deficit is so high.

    Are Republicans the party of fiscal responsibility or not?
    It doesn't count if you only care about the deficit when Democrats are in charge.

    The tax cut bill should be deficit neutral. That means no tax breaks for golf course owners, keeping the estate taxes and raising taxes on the highest income bracket to balance out the cut in corporate taxes.

    Personal income taxes are actually not very high when compared to the rest of the world. Paul Ryan is full of baloney.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 6:33 p.m.

    @redshirt

    Trickle down doesn't work. We need trickle up.

    The democrats need to come up with a tax cut that does not raise the deficit more than the republicans plan and target it only at the middle class. I would love to hear republicans attack a plan that would only benefit the middle class. It would be political suicide.

    Please please democrats do this.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 4:50 p.m.

    "Imagine only keeping 6 cents of EVERY dollar you earned..." -2 bits (emphasis mine)

    This is a totally inaccurate characterization!

    A much more honest one would be, ""Imagine only keeping 6 cents of THE FIFTY MILLIONTH dollar you earned (and every dollar thereafter)..."

    And while we're at it, the notion that every dollar NOT payed in taxes (thanks to a tax cut) is a dollar spent and pumped into the economy is not necessarily true.

    For example, the money a billionaire retains due to a tax cut may not be spent at all (after all, how many new Armani suits, or yachts, or private jets, or personal island retreats does one plutocrat need?). Often that money just sits in financial instruments, earning more capital gains (that are taxed well below salary/wage income rates); and when it *is* spent, it is on existing businesses - building the individual wealth of the billionaire, but not necessarily growing the economy.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 4:49 p.m.

    To "Tyler D" you have shown nothing. You have made generalized statements that are unverifiable.

    Again, tell us where taxing people has lead to prosperity. As I have clearly stated, as we have increased taxes, which is what your ilk would have us do, does NOT lead to prosperity, but leads slows growth. When GDP growth is LESS than the rate of inflation, that is a problem because it means your money is worth less. If your money becomes worth less, then you are NOT prospering.

    Again, where has any country been able to tax itself (that means raise taxes) and been able to gain in prosperity?

    You ignore the fact that "trickle down" economics actually works. It worked for Coolige, JFK, Reagan, the country of Chile, and countless other times when it has been tried. Even Laffer acknowledges that tax cuts can spur economic growth if the tax cuts are made in ways that encourage job growth. Do you know more than history or Dr. Laffer?

  • Tyler D Prescott, AZ
    Nov. 13, 2017 3:25 p.m.

    @RedShirt – “Before we started to put more of a tax burden on the people…”

    But now you’re changing the subject.

    Your first comment stated that any taxes will reduce prosperity. Clearly that is wrong as I’ve shown.

    I understand you not wanting to be shown to be wrong, but moving the goal post doesn’t hide that fact.

    Again, we can discuss what the ideal tax rate should be (since we both now agree it’s not zero) and there are many reasons a country’s growth rate might decrease – first and foremost, developing countries always grow at a faster rate because they’re starting from nothing (see nonlinear growth models). It’s natural to slow the rate as countries become developed.

    Regarding your questions – income decline of late is due to two primary factors. 1) The Great Republican Recession and 2) our continued worship of trickle-down economics as evidenced by the fact that despite the average decline, incomes for the top 1% have skyrocketed. Why isn’t that “trickling” down?

    The labor participation rate is primarily due to retire Baby Boomers.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Nov. 13, 2017 3:11 p.m.

    Redshirt,

    Europe likely exceeded that "ideal" tax rate which has hurt them. But look at taxes in the US during the post war period. Growth was high yet taxes were generally higher than they are now.

    If cutting taxes is a universal charm sure to raise the economy and thereby increase tax receipts (which is the message we get) then virtually zero taxes would ensure endless prosperity and cash overflowing in the govt. treasury. So, is a 1% tax rate (or similar nominal rate) the solution to everything? Would such a rate provide the tax receipts necessary to fund the govt.? Even the military (with almost nothing else)?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 3:05 p.m.

    For those who don't know the history of the Federal Income Tax in the USA... Google and read "Taxation history of the United States" (WikiPedia)...

    The history of taxation in the United States begins with the colonial protest against British taxation policy in the 1760s, leading to the American Revolution. The independent nation collected taxes on imports ("tariffs"), whiskey, and (for a while) on glass windows. States and localities collected poll taxes on voters and property taxes on land and commercial buildings. There are state and federal excise taxes. State and federal inheritance taxes began after 1900, while the states (but not the federal government) began collecting sales taxes in the 1930s. The United States imposed income taxes briefly during the Civil War and the 1890s. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified, permanently legalizing an income tax.

    The politicians originally promised the Income tax would never go above 5% (that was enough back then 3-5%). But by 1944 it was at 94% for some people (politicians lie).

    Imagine only keeping 6 cents of every dollar you earned...

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 2:26 p.m.

    To "Tyler D" you don't seem to understand prosperity. The more we have increased actual taxes (not just raising rates and adding enough loopholes so that you can get out of paying the taxes) the lower our GDP gains have been. Before we started to put more of a tax burden on the people, we had GDP growth close to 5%. Now, our GDP growth is LESS than inflation.

    If we are so prosperous, why is it that over the past 10 years the average income in the US dropped by $5000? Why would a prosperous nation have a labor participation rate that is rock bottom?

    Now, looking at Europe, if you look at the GDP growth since WWII, you see a downward trend at the same time their tax burden has been increasing. Why would their GDP growth slow down if you can increase taxes into prosperity? The data clearly demonstrates that the more you tax a nation the slower their growth, and you eventually get to a point where your growth is less than inflation.

  • Tyler D Prescott, AZ
    Nov. 13, 2017 1:58 p.m.

    @RedShirt – “again, name the country that has taxed itself into prosperity.”

    Did you not understand what I meant by “developed world?” That would include North America, Europe, most of Asia, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

    All of these countries, at some point in their history “raised taxes” (from a starting point of zero) in order to fund the military, police, courts, infrastructure, education, etc., and all of them increased their prosperity many fold because of it.

    Now if your argument is that there is some ideal tax rate and going beyond that would be detrimental, I would agree (depending on how you define “ideal”). But that’s not the argument you’ve made… at least not yet.

    If you’re sticking by your original thesis that any rise in taxes is bad (so going from zero to, say, 5% qualifies as bad) I will again ask you to name one prosperous country in the world that has a zero % tax rate.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 1:03 p.m.

    To "Tyler D " again, name the country that has taxed itself into prosperity. Not just maintained a tax rate, but actually raised taxes which brought about greater prosperity. You are also assuming that the countries that have had some level of success would not have had more success with lower taxes and lower spending.

  • Tyler D Prescott, AZ
    Nov. 13, 2017 12:03 p.m.

    @RedShirt – “Can you name a country that has taxed itself into prosperity?”

    How about the entire developed world, not one country of which has a zero % tax rate.

    Now, how about you name a country that cut taxes to zero and remained prosperous?

    @nonceleb – “Tax cuts for wealthy creates jobs.”

    Yes, when those cuts are channeled into productive enterprises.

    But, what the data conclusively shows is that most of the time they are not. Most of the time, it just makes the rich richer and bids up asset prices (i.e., creates bubbles).

    And, when all of that comes at the expense of health, education, good infrastructure, scientific research, etc. the economy as a whole suffers.

  • Thomas Jefferson Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 11:59 a.m.

    @4601 - Salt Lake City, UT

    ". Sending your pay check to the federal government and receiving a percentage of it back as a benefit is not a formula for prosperity, it never was. It only reinforces the socialist misconception that the government is the font of all wealth."

    That isnt a socialist misconception, that is a right wing strawman logical fallacy.

    "A healthy economy depends on the partnership of government and business without dominance by either."

    Now on that we agree.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 11:42 a.m.

    @joecap2

    Do you want define fair and low?

    I send the same percentage of my income to the federal government as Mitt Romney. Yet somehow Romney and the rich are praised by republicans like yourself for paying so much money to the Feds and they need a tax cut more than I (the middle class) do.

    The rich need to pay more and the middle class needs to pay less. And guess what? If the middle class got all of this tax break I guarantee the income of the wealthy would rise because of it.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 11:39 a.m.

    Tax cuts for wealthy creates jobs. Workers wages increase. Economy grows dramatically. Despite losing government revenue from taxes on the rich, they increase from a booming economy. Federal deficits decline. Done in the 1980s. Fail. Again in the 2000s. Huge fail. I know. Let's try it again! Supply-side and trickle down is still gospel. Third time is the charm.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 11:21 a.m.

    To "Millenial Snow" I don't know where you get your data from, but according to the BLS, the average CEO salary is $181,210, which is about 3 times the average worker salary. That would mean that the average CEO is getting paid LESS now than they did in 1965.

    With everything in such disarray, why not look at the large budget items and cut those? Why not cut the welfare programs that are bloated? Why not let people keep more of the money that they earned?

    Can you name a country that has taxed itself into prosperity?

    To "Tyler D" it worked when JFK did it 50 years ago, it also worked when Coolige did it 100 years ago. How well has the Obama tax it policy worked? Why didn't Obama's policy result in the same growth that JFK, Coolige, and Reagan saw?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Nov. 13, 2017 11:15 a.m.

    Faith motivates most Republicans as they cast practicality and common sense to the wayside. In reality, trickle-down economics has never helped our nation.

    Hey Flying Finn -

    "Based on what former Secret Service agents say that were assigned to protect her American dodged a bullet on election night."

    Lies proliferate in the Republican world, don't they? Doesn't it bother you that many of your fondest beliefs about America originated in Russia?

    Hey Joe Capitalist -

    RE: "Just set a fair corporate rate and low flat tax rates for individuals with no deductions and let people earn and keep their own money."

    . . . Except Republican leaders rarely do anything "fair." They are far too beholden to their billionaire donors.

    It's been that way since Reagan's time in office. Among many other disasters, Reagan drastically slashed the estate tax, and the wealth disparity in this nation exploded.

    Why do you think our "greatest geopolitical foe" helps Republicans win elections here?

    Do our enemies want America to be prosper or weaken? Do they want America to be influential, or would they rather we be an international pariah?

    Face it: When Republicans win, America loses.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Nov. 13, 2017 11:15 a.m.

    Faith motivates most Republicans as they cast practicality and common sense to the wayside. In reality, trickle-down economics has never helped our nation.

    Hey Flying Finn -

    "Based on what former Secret Service agents say that were assigned to protect her American dodged a bullet on election night."

    Lies proliferate in the Republican world, don't they? Doesn't it bother you that many of your fondest about America originated in Russia?

    Hey Joe Capitalist -

    RE: "Just set a fair corporate rate and low flat tax rates for individuals with no deductions and let people earn and keep their own money."

    . . . Except Republican leaders rarely do anything "fair." They are far too beholden to their billionaire donors.

    It's been that way since Reagan's time in office. Among many other disasters, Reagan drastically slashed the estate tax, and the wealth disparity in this nation exploded.

    Why do you think our "greatest geopolitical foe" helps Republicans win elections here?

    Do our enemies want America to be prosper or weaken? Do they want America to be influential, or would they rather we be an international pariah?

    Face it: When Republicans win, America loses.

  • goodnight-goodluck Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 11:06 a.m.

    Need to put this entire tax plan on hold until all the revelations and allegations in the Paradise Papers can be fully investigated, and oh yes Utah our folks figure prominently in them...

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 11:05 a.m.

    As JFK noted, all boats float in a rising tide. The more money people make, the more they spend on commodities and services which provides jobs for everyone. Sending your pay check to the federal government and receiving a percentage of it back as a benefit is not a formula for prosperity, it never was. It only reinforces the socialist misconception that the government is the font of all wealth. A healthy economy depends on the partnership of government and business without dominance by either.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 11:04 a.m.

    It's not just based on "faith".

    It's based on faith, and human nature, and laws of nature (and natural laws that govern a free-market).

    Laws like if we have more money to spend.. we will spend more. And the assumption that if you take more out of my paycheck... I will have less to spend).

    I don't think it takes a lot of faith to believe that if you take more money out of people's pay checks... they will have less to spend.

    And the inverse... if you leave more money in the tax-payer's pay check... they will have more to spend.

    I don't have any technical training in economic theories... but that one is pretty obvious (if your pay check is bigger... you have more to spend).

    That's not faith. That's common knowledge.

    ===

    Now what's based on "faith" is the assumption that if you take more money out of people's pay checks... the people who take that money will spend it better than you would. That's "faith".

  • Tyler D Prescott, AZ
    Nov. 13, 2017 10:29 a.m.

    The Trickle-Down experiment has been in place for almost 40 years and the evidence is conclusive (hint: Bush Sr. was right when he called it Voodoo economics).

    The predictions made by Supply Siders almost never come true, and in most cases the exact opposite happens (e.g., see their predictions about Bush Sr. and Clinton raising taxes in the 90’s and the results that actually occurred).

    But if all the evidence on the national level isn’t enough, in the last decade we have seen two states – Kansas and Louisiana – embrace the trickle-down ideology with religious conviction.


    The results have been disastrous, especially in Kansas. All economic indicators in the state plummeted while all their immediate neighbors continued to recover from the Great Republican Recession.

    Which all raises the most obvious question – when are we going to return to the politics that made our country great; namely, the politics of pragmatism (i.e., what works)?

  • Flying Finn Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 9:59 a.m.

    I always marvel at the Liberals who hate Trump but were unable to provide voters with a worthy candidate to run against him in 2016.

    Based on what former Secret Service agents say that were assigned to protect her American dodged a bullet on election night.

  • goodnight-goodluck Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 9:25 a.m.

    Want an economy that encourages growth? Raise the corporate tax rate to 90% of everything over the first million, with dollar for dollar exemptions for everything pumped back into the company.
    Eliminate any exemption from the inheritance tax. Being the lucky sperm down the tube should not make you a billionaire. Go earn your way like mom n dad.

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 9:12 a.m.

    What's really great about this tax plan is the substantial break it gives golf course owners. Yes, you read that right. If they don't build on land they've already built their course on, they get a yuge tax break.

    Way to go Republicans! Make America Embarrassed Again.

  • Thomas Jefferson Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 9:04 a.m.

    Trickle down works as designed.

    It fools simple people into voting against their own interests to gives billionaires more money they could never spend in 50 lifetimes.

    No company or person has ever created a job just because they have more money. Companies create jobs to make money, not to spend it. I hire another person because I can pay them $20/hour while they earn my business $40.

    Right now American corporations are sitting on piles of capital. Jobs lag because they lack markets, not capital.

    If you believe what the GOP is selling they you are being taken for a ride which ends in another economic collapse...which the wealthy can easily endure while the rest of us scrape by.

    Manufacturing is not coming back until Americans are willing to work for the pittance that people in over populated countries are willing to take. The reason so much manufacturing moved over seas has everything to do with labor and almost nothing to do with taxes or regulations.

    Just wait until self driving trucks cause the next giant drop in employment. GOP will blame 'libs'.

    But I know this will fall on deaf ears. It is easier to fool someone than convince them they have been fooled.

  • cool47 Saratoga Springs, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 8:50 a.m.

    Millionaires and billionaires are like any other group. There are enlightened good ones and greedy bad ones.

    The good ones are calling for no NO tax cuts for them in the name of encouraging a more balanced society.

    I believe the enlightened group.

    Unfortunately our legislators seem to be under the influence of the greedy group.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 13, 2017 8:05 a.m.

    "Instead of just creating a fair, "

    Herein lies the problem Joe..what is fair? Your opinion seems to be fair is equal. Everybody pays x%, end of story.

    Is it fair however that a person who is at the bottom of the income queue struggling to get by, pays 20% in taxes and it pushes them into poverty, while someone in the 1% pays 20% and only has to scrounge through their couch to come up with the payment? More important, is that smart?

    I would submit their is not "a" definition of fair.

    The other issue is a Laissez-faire approach to wealth distribution will result in massive inequality. A condition that will destroy democracy and society.

    Of course inequality is part of a capitalist economy and as a principle isn't wrong. What is wrong is when that inequality tilts so heavily to the upper end that it destroys the middle and the bottom. Tax policies are one way to prevent that.

    Again, no one answer, but just let it be what it will be..guarantees it will awful.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Nov. 13, 2017 7:55 a.m.

    If you are not appalled, you are not paying attention.

    Or more likely, you blindly support a would-be dictator and his oligarchic buddies. Party over country.

  • Millenial Snow Sandy, UT
    Nov. 13, 2017 1:15 a.m.

    In 1965 the employee to CEO wage ratio was 20 to 1
    Today the employee to CEO wage ratio is 303 to 1

    Trickle down economics is a sham. What really happens is the CEO gives himself a bonus every year, hides the company profits in Panama and then ships the jobs overseas.

    We have a very low tax rate in the US. We are 38th in taxes. With the deficit and crumbling infrastructure and a healthcare crisis this is hardly the time to give billionaires tax cuts.

    Paul Ryan can go home now, I'm not buying his snake oil.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Nov. 12, 2017 9:54 p.m.

    "...there will always be one fundamental factor driving the overall proposal: faith. Faith that a corporate tax cut (from 35 percent to 20 percent) will bring back jobs. Faith that a corporate tax cut will lead to increased wages. Faith that a trickle-down economics approach will finally work."

    Herein lies the problem. Putting faith in government bureaucrats to try and manage the economy through tax policy. Just like the communist government in the Soviet Union tried to do with 'central planning'; our government keeps trying to engineer fairness, social justice, or wealth redistribution with a bunch of convoluted tax codes that make zero sense.

    Instead of just creating a fair, predictable tax system that everyone can follow and depend upon; they create a system where only the tax accountants and government lobbyists (besides the lawmakers themselves) benefit from.

    Just set a fair corporate rate and low flat tax rates for individuals with no deductions and let people earn and keep their own money.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Nov. 12, 2017 8:48 p.m.

    Yep. Keep voting Republican. The middle class will surely benefit from their tinkle down economy.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 12, 2017 7:54 p.m.

    Ryne-
    You make some salient points.

    Additionally, the Senate version of the tax bill doesn't cut corporate taxes until 2019--in order to keep the cost down in the 10 year window.

    The House version of the tax bill keeps the tax loophole for golf-course owners (example:Trump), which allows them to claim deductions for promising to never build on their courses.