First, eliminating the state and local tax (SALT) deduction makes sense because it encourages those governing entities to raise spending, knowing residents can deducts it at the federal level. So, curtailing amounts to a tax increase. The deal is to reduce the amount of SALT deductibility and also lower the income tax brackets for all income brackets including the highest one.
Second, politicians in both parties take the side of the employer/producer in this debate. The federal tax code includes a deduction for “educators”, meaning teachers. They are not the consumer or employee or individual.
Third, there is no assurance that a small business owner or anyone else who gets a tax reduction will hire employees. They may simply give themselves a pay raise.
A broad tax credit for citizens themselves so they can re-train, educate, or otherwise learn new skills are what is needed. Examples are someone who wants to learn how to braid hair, be an electrician, software programmer, or building engineer, learn the nuts-and-bolts of starting a business. There are hundreds of job classifications someone can sift through to find the niche that fits him or her.
Huh? John Tamny starts off with a story about Kentucky Fried Chicken in Ghana:
“The food is just…When you taste it you feel good.” Those are the words of Daniel Awaitey, a 27-year old Ghanaian. He was talking to New York Times reporters Dionne Searcey and Matt Richtel about his favorite restaurant in Accra, the capital city of Ghana. That restaurant is Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC).
Me: Is this what Democrat’s mean by equality:
In a perfect world every American, and certainly every American politician, would read about Daniel Awaitey. He comes from a country that’s long been defined by equality in the sense that most have been equally poor in ways that the most destitute Americans couldn’t reasonably comprehend.
Tamny quoting Jeffery Tucker on McDonalds:
[T]he original McDonald’s was just one branch in San Bernardino, and the founders were too narrow-minded, squeamish, and lacking in vision that the situation proved ripe for a go-getting promoter like Ray Kroc to come along and franchise the idea.”
Kroc saw global possibility where McDonald’s originators saw a small business serving a tiny portion of America’s population. Thank goodness Kroc envisioned what no one did, and better yet, acted on it. McDonald’s didn’t attain a $100 billion market capitalization by exploiting people as much it got that way by virtue of serving the needs of a world desperate for a taste of much more than American food.
How do these quotes fit into the tax cut issue? Find out Here.
Dan Mitchell: “Instead, my goal is to enable additional growth by shifting to a system that doesn’t do as much damage to investment and job creation.“
Over the past decade, new tax-supported NFL stadiums rose up for the Indianapolis Colts (the $720 million Lucas Oil Stadium), the Dallas Cowboys (the $1.15 billion AT&T Stadium) the New York Jets and Giants (the $1.6 billion MetLife Stadium, the Minnesota Vikings (the $1.1 billion U.S. Bank Stadium), the Atlanta Falcons (the $1.5 billion Mercedes-Benz Stadium), and the San Francisco 49ers (the $1.3 billion Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara).
Next in the works: a whopping $2.6 billion stadium for the Los Angeles Chargers and Rams and a $1.9 billion stadium for the Oakland Raiders when they move to Las Vegas. Left behind? An $83 million taxpayer debt on two-decade-old renovations to the Alameda County Coliseum that the Raiders are abandoning.
Bottom line: the government spending does not deliver the return on investment.
Finally, a bad idea dies.
In a joint statement on tax reform, congressional Republican leadership and the Trump administration said Thursday afternoon that the idea of adjusting corporate taxes at the border won’t be part of the plan.
Why can’t more bad policy ideas die?
“The truth is the people I care most about are the middle-income people in this country who have gotten screwed. And if there’s upward revision it’s going to be on high-income people,” President Trump
This is politics. It plays to his base. It puts Democrats in a bind because they represent the richest areas of the country. Democrats have gotten a two-fer free ride for decades by advocating higher taxes on higher income earners and then having the Republicans oppose it on economic grounds.
I’d like to see Trump flip the question back to Hillary skillfully. The real issue is the tax code. Does it need to be reformed or not? If Trump took deductions, it was because the tax code provided for them. Once the deductions are there in the tax code, he pretty much has to take them and would be a fool not to take them. If it looks wrong, what’s really wrong is the tax code. So, is Hillary proposing to take away this deduction? Is Trump? Presumably, the deduction is there because it’s good policy. Will either candidate defend the policy and, if not, promise to change it? I don’t see what else matters here. And I suspect the candidates don’t even disagree about that.
Yes, these are the questions that need to be asked, not more gotcha b.s.
Yes, he would be a fool not to take deductions. Do you not try to minimize your tax burden?
And this is yet another issue that does not get debated this election cycle.