View Full Version : Boost economy with ‘very large’ tax cut — or ‘real danger of Speaker Pelosi’
jimnyc
07-18-2017, 06:37 PM
That's right, "Speaker Pelosi". That old hag needs to go. But instead, with the dems doing nothing, and the R's not able to work with one another, Speaker Pelosi is possible, no matter how scary. :(
---
GINGRICH: Boost economy with ‘very large’ tax cut — or ‘real danger of Speaker Pelosi’
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich issued a dire warning to Republicans on Monday: Improve the economy or face cataclysmic losses in 2018.
How bad? Nancy Pelosi would return to the Speaker’s chair.
During an appearance on Fox News, Gingrich urged Republicans to focus on economic growth.
“They have got to pass by Thanksgiving, and get signed into law, by Thanksgiving, a very large tax cut, retroactively designed back to January 1 to make sure that we have enough economic growth in 2018. That Republicans can run as the party of prosperity, of jobs, of higher take home pay, and of economic growth,” Gingrich said.
He said the “highest focus” should be getting the tax bill passed.
“If we don’t have economic growth next year, I think we’re in real danger of having Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019,” Gingrich said.
He predicted Republicans would retain power if there is economic growth.
Trump has been frequently tweeting about job growth during his term.
Last week, he shared stats about private-sector job growth, most notably, 42,000 jobs added in mining and logging, a key focus during his campaign in Ohio and Pennsylvania:
https://i.imgur.com/HdunnE2.png
Rest here - http://www.theamericanmirror.com/gingrich-boost-economy-large-tax-cut-real-danger-speaker-pelosi/
That's right, "Speaker Pelosi". That old hag needs to go. But instead, with the dems doing nothing, and the R's not able to work with one another, Speaker Pelosi is possible, no matter how scary. :(
---
GINGRICH: Boost economy with ‘very large’ tax cut — or ‘real danger of Speaker Pelosi’
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich issued a dire warning to Republicans on Monday: Improve the economy or face cataclysmic losses in 2018.
How bad? Nancy Pelosi would return to the Speaker’s chair.
During an appearance on Fox News, Gingrich urged Republicans to focus on economic growth.
“They have got to pass by Thanksgiving, and get signed into law, by Thanksgiving, a very large tax cut, retroactively designed back to January 1 to make sure that we have enough economic growth in 2018. That Republicans can run as the party of prosperity, of jobs, of higher take home pay, and of economic growth,” Gingrich said.
He said the “highest focus” should be getting the tax bill passed.
“If we don’t have economic growth next year, I think we’re in real danger of having Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019,” Gingrich said.
He predicted Republicans would retain power if there is economic growth.
Trump has been frequently tweeting about job growth during his term.
Last week, he shared stats about private-sector job growth, most notably, 42,000 jobs added in mining and logging, a key focus during his campaign in Ohio and Pennsylvania:
https://i.imgur.com/HdunnE2.png
Rest here - http://www.theamericanmirror.com/gingrich-boost-economy-large-tax-cut-real-danger-speaker-pelosi/
In FY 2016, US revenue was $3.3 trillion, expenses were $3.9 trillion for a budget deficit of $587 billion.
The US needs to cut spending and have No tax cuts.
Reducing revenue with a large budget deficit will increase the deficit the following year.
Cost cutting will help to reduce the deficit.
Giving tax cuts on in any economy based upon estimated economic growth is crazy.
Drummond
07-19-2017, 08:15 PM
In FY 2016, US revenue was $3.3 trillion, expenses were $3.9 trillion for a budget deficit of $587 billion.
The US needs to cut spending and have No tax cuts.
Reducing revenue with a large budget deficit will increase the deficit the following year.
Cost cutting will help to reduce the deficit.
Giving tax cuts on in any economy based upon estimated economic growth is crazy.
Surely, cutting tax .. most especially to those running / owning Companies .. will reduce the tax burden on them, stimulating scope for growth ? With growth comes expansion, extra jobs, and therefore, a more vibrant and dynamic business environment ?
As a Conservative, I'm only an advocate for 'high' taxes when it's absolutely necessary, in exceptional circumstances, and for as minimal a period as possible. The ideal is surely to have as small a tax burden as it's possible to have !
Cost cutting is fine in principle ... as an 'austerity' measure, AGAIN, when it MUST occur ... but not to the point where it eventually becomes a false economy, as happens when it's over-used.
Surely, cutting tax .. most especially to those running / owning Companies .. will reduce the tax burden on them, stimulating scope for growth ? With growth comes expansion, extra jobs, and therefore, a more vibrant and dynamic business environment ?
As a Conservative, I'm only an advocate for 'high' taxes when it's absolutely necessary, in exceptional circumstances, and for as minimal a period as possible. The ideal is surely to have as small a tax burden as it's possible to have !
Cost cutting is fine in principle ... as an 'austerity' measure, AGAIN, when it MUST occur ... but not to the point where it eventually becomes a false economy, as happens when it's over-used.
You can't spend your way out of a deficit budget or a slow economy.
The only way out of deficit spending is to increase revenue and/or cut expenses.
if you want a small tax burden then be prepared for reduced spending and reduced services.
Kathianne
07-19-2017, 08:43 PM
You can't spend your way out of a deficit budget or a slow economy.
The only way out of deficit spending is to increase revenue and/or cut expenses.
if you want a small tax burden then be prepared for reduced spending and reduced services.
I agree for the most part. In order to be competitive in the world market, we need to reduce the tax burden on businesses. We went from one of the lowest to the top. In general, lowering the corporate rate would most likely boost revenues.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/09/eric-bolling/does-us-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-free-world/
...
Out of the 34 countries in the OECD (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XJD9Zh9Cjdk1-jZb2jp9mxuy9N_rjnpanyT4l-J4xiM/edit#gid=378836434), America ranks first with a 39.1 percent corporate tax rate, compared to an OECD average of 24.1 percent. The OECD figure is what’s called the statutory rate, meaning the base rate applied to corporate profits.
...
https://taxfoundation.org/corporate-income-tax-rates-around-world-2016/
...
Key Findings:
The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world, at 38.92 percent. Due to the recent reduction in Chad’s corporate tax rate, the U.S. rate is exceeded only by the United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico.
The worldwide average top corporate income tax rate, across 188 countries and tax jurisdictions, is 22.5 percent. After weighting by each jurisdiction’s GDP, the average rate is 29.5 percent.
...
Drummond
07-20-2017, 06:34 AM
You can't spend your way out of a deficit budget or a slow economy.
The only way out of deficit spending is to increase revenue and/or cut expenses.
if you want a small tax burden then be prepared for reduced spending and reduced services.
On your first point ... consider the 2008 crash. Does comparatively recent history support your assertion ?
Didn't both the US and UK 'spend their way' out of it, by bailing out banks ? What would've been the result, had neither country taken that step ?
A way of increasing revenue into an economy is through a thriving business environment. The LESS inhibited the businesses involved, the greater their scope for growth, expansion, job creation. Instead ... have higher Governmental authorities come along and stunt the capacity for growth by taking swingeing taxes from them ... and their ability to cope is proportional to what's demanded of them, fiscally, in terms of what capacity they have to absorb such a burden.
Taxes are necessary .. but of course. But, a critical balance must be struck between the viability of social and Governmental services, and those who provide the revenue in the first place. This does not mean foisting any tough tax regime on those who become increasingly burdened from the effects of paying it !
Sadly .. few Socialists see that argument, and would never choose to concede it, preferring instead to be blinkered to those realities not to their liking. I should know (!) ... from my own Society.
On your first point ... consider the 2008 crash. Does comparatively recent history support your assertion ?
Didn't both the US and UK 'spend their way' out of it, by bailing out banks ? What would've been the result, had neither country taken that step ?
A way of increasing revenue into an economy is through a thriving business environment. The LESS inhibited the businesses involved, the greater their scope for growth, expansion, job creation. Instead ... have higher Governmental authorities come along and stunt the capacity for growth by taking swingeing taxes from them ... and their ability to cope is proportional to what's demanded of them, fiscally, in terms of what capacity they have to absorb such a burden.
Taxes are necessary .. but of course. But, a critical balance must be struck between the viability of social and Governmental services, and those who provide the revenue in the first place. This does not mean foisting any tough tax regime on those who become increasingly burdened from the effects of paying it !
Sadly .. few Socialists see that argument, and would never choose to concede it, preferring instead to be blinkered to those realities not to their liking. I should know (!) ... from my own Society.
Spending refers to consumer spending and its effect on the economy.
Bank bailouts are not spending per say, but an expense in buying the assets of distressed corporations - a desperation move that is far from laissez-faire capitalism.
Businesses cannot be trusted to operate without some level of regulation.
Greed and stupidity will rule the day - just like derivatives, which severely accelerated the 2008 market crash.
Business taxes are reasonable right now is 21% which is close to the average 24% from the Group of Seven tax rates.
Like politicians, business ache and cry about everything and play very loose with the truth.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/actual-us-corporate-tax-rates-are-in-line-with-comparable-countries
If US business tax rates were that bad, no US corporations would operate here.
Your constant cries of socialism show you to be quite uneducated.
I agree for the most part. In order to be competitive in the world market, we need to reduce the tax burden on businesses. We went from one of the lowest to the top. In general, lowering the corporate rate would most likely boost revenues.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/09/eric-bolling/does-us-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-free-world/
https://taxfoundation.org/corporate-income-tax-rates-around-world-2016/
The US top statutory rate is actually 35% - US corporations actually pay about 24% on profits from new investments.
The average tax rate from the Group of Seven nations is 21%, so the US rates are not bad at all.
Beware businesses crying foul when there is really no foul at all.
Little-Acorn
07-20-2017, 01:31 PM
Thread: Boost economy with ‘very large’ tax cut — or ‘real danger of Speaker Pelosi’
Tax cuts are nice. But if they're not accompanied by spending cuts at least as large, then they'll just make the National Debt increase even faster, and will make the coming crash (when people decide the U.S. is not longer a good credit risk and refuse to lend them any more money), come even sooner and harder.
BTW, by "spending cuts", I don't mean reductions in the rate of increase, like (We were going to increase spending by 8% next year, but now we've decided we'll only increase it by 5%. There, a 3% spending "cut"!!!)
I mean a spending cut, like (We're going to spend 3% less this year in total, than we did last year.)
I'm not holding my breath.
Drummond
07-20-2017, 10:26 PM
Spending refers to consumer spending and its effect on the economy.
Bank bailouts are not spending per say, but an expense in buying the assets of distressed corporations - a desperation move that is far from laissez-faire capitalism.
Businesses cannot be trusted to operate without some level of regulation.
Greed and stupidity will rule the day - just like derivatives, which severely accelerated the 2008 market crash.
Business taxes are reasonable right now is 21% which is close to the average 24% from the Group of Seven tax rates.
Like politicians, business ache and cry about everything and play very loose with the truth.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/actual-us-corporate-tax-rates-are-in-line-with-comparable-countries
If US business tax rates were that bad, no US corporations would operate here.
Your constant cries of socialism show you to be quite uneducated.
You're very touchy about my usage of the word 'socialist', or 'socialism'. You seem to need to enter into disparagement when I use such a word.
I think you're splitting hairs to a degree. The real point is that an economy needs to be viable. For that, it must have funds which are circulated, or held, according to a model which lends itself to that viability. Big and sudden drains on those funds threaten such viability if taken to extremes.
2008 saw acts of near-desperation in that regard ... massive injections of funds to keep banks afloat, to see to it that confidence in them remained high enough for their continued operation. You might quibble about 'consumer spending', but, the funds used for the injection came out of the overall economy for the effort. It didn't originate from magic trees, which grew the cash on demand !
You say 'Businesses cannot be trusted to operate without some level of regulation'. Well .. how much is too much ? Where would you draw the line ? What would be your motivation in wanting them mired in such regulation ?
A straitjacket of regulations could be so severe as to cripple entrepreneurialism. Socialists wouldn't care about that. A more realistic outlook would be to see the extent of such regulation as critical to business health - the more businesses are stuck with restrictions, the more they suffocate under the weight of them.
So .. make your case to show me how vital it is that businesses ARE suffocated in that way. In the meantime, here's a lesson from our own business environment ... and what they think of our Labour leader (a hardline Socialist) .. and ... WHY ....
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jeremy-corbyn-what-business-world-thinks-new-labour-leader-1519655
After winning a landslide victory to become the new Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn appointed fellow die-hard left winger John McDonnell as shadow chancellor, pulling the political opposition more towards the left. Although the Tory government has launched an attack on the 66-year-old's international policies and military stances, the business world is more concerned about what the socialist will mean for the UK economy, the City and business in general.
Nigel Green, chief of independent international financial consultancy deVere Group, said the economic policies of the Labour leader are detrimental to Britain's pro-business reputation. He said: "He seems utterly determined to drag Britain back to the 1970s, an era in which the UK was strangled by high taxes and an inflexible labour market. If he thinks high taxes and inflexible labour is the way forward in today's world, I suggest that he looks at France in the first years of Hollande's presidency."
IBTimes UK has looked at the responses from representing business bodies to see if they share Green's dramatic view on the former backbencher.
The Institute of Directors has congratulated Corbyn on his anticipated victory. Its director general, Simon Walker, said: "It is no secret that business has not always seen eye-to-eye with the new leader of the opposition. From renationalising the railways, to raising taxes on businesses and increasing government spending, Mr Corbyn has proposed some policies in the leadership campaign that we believe would undermine our open and competitive economy.
We in the UK have had a far greater taste of Socialism and its wrecking ways, and for far longer, than the US has. We KNOW how destructive it can be, from bitter experience.
Learn from our example.
You're very touchy about my usage of the word 'socialist', or 'socialism'. You seem to need to enter into disparagement when I use such a word.
I think you're splitting hairs to a degree. The real point is that an economy needs to be viable. For that, it must have funds which are circulated, or held, according to a model which lends itself to that viability. Big and sudden drains on those funds threaten such viability if taken to extremes.
2008 saw acts of near-desperation in that regard ... massive injections of funds to keep banks afloat, to see to it that confidence in them remained high enough for their continued operation. You might quibble about 'consumer spending', but, the funds used for the injection came out of the overall economy for the effort. It didn't originate from magic trees, which grew the cash on demand !
You say 'Businesses cannot be trusted to operate without some level of regulation'. Well .. how much is too much ? Where would you draw the line ? What would be your motivation in wanting them mired in such regulation ?
A straitjacket of regulations could be so severe as to cripple entrepreneurialism. Socialists wouldn't care about that. A more realistic outlook would be to see the extent of such regulation as critical to business health - the more businesses are stuck with restrictions, the more they suffocate under the weight of them.
So .. make your case to show me how vital it is that businesses ARE suffocated in that way. In the meantime, here's a lesson from our own business environment ... and what they think of our Labour leader (a hardline Socialist) .. and ... WHY ....
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jeremy-corbyn-what-business-world-thinks-new-labour-leader-1519655
We in the UK have had a far greater taste of Socialism and its wrecking ways, and for far longer, than the US has. We KNOW how destructive it can be, from bitter experience.
Learn from our example.
Don't ever infer or call me a socialist again.
Your childish fixation with such ridiculous labels is ignorant.
Drummond
07-20-2017, 11:01 PM
Don't ever infer or call me a socialist again.
Your childish fixation with such ridiculous labels is ignorant.
This is the best you can do ?
You've no detailed response to offer ?
Why is that ? Do you concede the soundness of my basic argument ?
And tell me ... why are you so resistant to any attempt at labelling, anyway ? Do you find that you'd rather not have the nature of a philosophy, and what may drive it, quantified with any succinct clarity ?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.