Politics Thread

[X-man]

Yep, time to drastically increase taxes. Trump was already warned House members he’ll veto the budget if it looks like the last one.

Fixed that for you.

[GoMuskies]

Well, that's a terrible idea.

[ChicagoX]

Well, that's a terrible idea.

If you can't increase some taxes during times of economic prosperity, then when can you do it?

[boozehound]

The corporate tax slashing was long overdue. Our corporate tax rates were silly and uncompetitive. The tax changes related to individuals were welcome to me personally, but I think they were unnecessary.

Generally agree.

I agree with you for the most part, although I think the corporate tax could have gone to 28% like Obama proposed instead of the 21% that was passed last year. Most of the tax breaks have gone to stock buybacks, dividend increases and business investments, and very little of it has been used to increase salaries, give employee bonuses or hire more workers.

Agree.

Yep, time to drastically cut spending. Trump was already warned House members he’ll veto the budget if it looks like the last one.

Generally agree, although I have no belief that Trump will actually drive any meaningful spending cuts. The problem with cutting spending is that the majority of discretionary spending goes to (1) Social Security, (2) Medicare, and (3) Military. I don't see anyone driving the level of changes needed to any of those areas to drive material cost reduction, particularly not a populist like Trump. Populism 101 = spend, spend, spend.

[GoMuskies]

If you can't increase some taxes during times of economic prosperity, then when can you do it?

Never hopefully (when talking about drastic tax increases, which is the word used above). Why kill the prosperity?

[GoMuskies]

Generally agree, although I have no belief that Trump will actually drive any meaningful spending cuts. The problem with cutting spending is that the majority of discretionary spending goes to (1) Social Security, (2) Medicare, and (3) Military. I don't see anyone driving the level of changes needed to any of those areas to drive material cost reduction, particularly not a populist like Trump. Populism 101 = spend, spend, spend.

The "major" cuts need to come out of defense.

On SS, in theory I like the idea of a "donut" on the payroll tax. You know, a hole in the middle where the payroll tax doesn't apply from like $125k to $250k then kicks back in. But I don't trust the government to stop there and know they'd eventually apply the payroll tax to 100% of W-2 income.

[X-man]

Never hopefully (when talking about drastic tax increases, which is the word used above). Why kill the prosperity?

Are you not worried about the size of the publically held debt relative to GDP, and how that could threaten not only prosperity but also hamstring the government's ability to do anything to mitigate the next recession or fight a war (the two ways that historically are the primary reason for debt-to-GDP increases)? While I am not in the camp that worries about government borrowing or wants a balanced budget, I do subscribe to Greg Mankiw's concerns about the latter issue. It seems important to always have room, when times are good, to increase that ratio to fight a war or help an economy recover from a recession.

[Caf]

The "major" cuts need to come out of defense.

Surprised to see this, and agreed. This seems to be a cut most Republicans wouldn't support though.

[GoMuskies]

Are you not worried about the size of the publically held debt relative to GDP, and how that could threaten not only prosperity but also hamstring the government's ability to do anything to mitigate the next recession or fight a war (the two ways that historically are the primary reason for debt-to-GDP increases)?

I prefer to grow total tax revenue through increases in taxable income as opposed to rate of taxation. And there is definitely some room for reining in the spending.

[GoMuskies]

This seems to be a cut most Republicans wouldn't support though.

Well, Republicans kinda suck.