Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Remember how Trump likes to brag about going to Wharton and being intelligent? I don't think he likes the analysis by his alma mater of his tax cut bill.
Quote:
This brief reports Penn Wharton Budget Model’s (PWBM) static and dynamic analysis of the Senate Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), as passed by the Senate on December 2, 2017. Even with assumptions favorable to economic growth, the Senate TCJA increases debt by over $1.5 trillion dollars over the next decade.
Quote:
Key Points
By 2027, under our standard economics assumptions, GDP is projected to be between 0.5 percent and 1.0 percent larger, relative to no tax changes. Debt increases between $1.8 trillion and $1.9 trillion, inclusive of economic growth.
By 2040, GDP is projected to be between 0.4 percent and 1.2 percent larger under our baseline assumptions, and debt increases by $2.6 to $3.1 trillion.
Additional sensitivity analysis indicates that even under assumptions favorable to economic growth, by 2027, GDP is projected to be between 1.0 percent and 1.9 percent larger, and debt increases between $1.5 trillion and $1.8 trillion.
The impact of slashing the corporate tax rate to 20% will be even steeper: $1.4 trillion in lost revenue.
Interesting, but these studies typically only account for the hard, guaranteed numbers, failing to take into account the affect that the tax cuts promise to have on innovation and jobs growth.
Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, this analysis doesn't take into account any potential spending cuts, so the "debt increases" analysis is a bit premature.
I also wonder if this study takes into account the monies promises via the repatriation of funds since businesses and individuals would be allowed to bring their incomes earned abroad back into the US at a low tax rate. This is money that otherwise would have never set foot in the US.
More fundamentally, the government is not entitled to "X" or "Y" percentage of our hard-earned money. Taxes should be cut and given back to taxpayers, but, as I mentioned above, this is not to say that government also shouldn't cut spending where appropriate (and there are many places where its appropriate to cut spending).
Interesting, but these studies typically only account for the hard, guaranteed numbers, failing to take into account the affect that the tax cuts promise to have on innovation and jobs growth.
Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, this analysis doesn't take into account any potential spending cuts, so the "debt increases" analysis is a bit premature.
I also wonder if this study takes into account the monies promises via the repatriation of funds since businesses and individuals would be allowed to bring their incomes earned abroad back into the US at a low tax rate. This is money that otherwise would have never set foot in the US.
More fundamentally, the government is not entitled to "X" or "Y" percentage of our hard-earned money. Taxes should be cut and given back to taxpayers, but, as I mentioned above, this is not to say that government also shouldn't cut spending where appropriate (and there are many places where its appropriate to cut spending).
Look i get you dont like taxation. But the fact is here in the US we get pretty good value for our tax dollars.
When expressed as a % of our GDP you can see our tax rate is in line and lower with developed nations. Unfortunately we spend far too much money on wars. in fact we have spent Trillions and the final bill for our two current major conflicts looks to be coming in at about 12 Trillion when all the spending in done around 2050....and that is only if we stopped fighting today.
and for every reason you can claim it a not as bad as the study says i can come up with a reason it is worse than the study says...
REAL cuts are needed, not Washington "cuts" where they increase spending by 5% instead of 10% and call it a 50% "spending cut".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
