Larry Elder plays CBS’ tax special with three families (watch the CBS video here at TOWNHALL) from different incomes: (a) little under $40,000 a year; (b) more than $150,000 a year; (c) couple’s combined income was $300,000. Turns out ALL THREE will get a tax return. The Democrats know they are in trouble!
Here Are The Winners And Losers Of The New Tax Law — In that article is a link to THIS TAX CALCULATOR
Did you know that the U.S. federal government collects more than $3 trillion in taxes each year? Where does all that money come from?
Michael Medved deconstructs Abigail Disney’s positions in her video activism attacking [mainly by straw-men] the new Tax law. (Abigail is the grand-daughter of Walt Disney’s brother, Roy O. Disney.) Many disagreeing calls are taken, per Medved’s habit.
This interview took place minutes after the House passed the tax bill. There were things in this bill I had no idea were in there. Here is what I posted on my Facebook:
Awesome Indeed.
GAY PATRIOT notes the rhetoric in our Democrat Left:
Hysterically shrieking “Republican tax cuts are going to kill us all!” is the official position of the Democrat Party.
[….]
PATRIOT LISTS SOME EXAMPLES
[….]
But don’t forget, Global Warming is also going to kill us all. And repealing Obamacare is going to kill us all. Changes to the school lunch program are going to kill our children so they won’t even live long enough to commit suicide as transgender teenagers. Even the slightest cuts to the size and scope of the Federal Bureaucracy, that’s going to kill us all, you betcha. And concealed carry reciprocity is surely going to kill us all.
But, hey, it’s better than being sent to Mike Pence’s Electrocution Death Camps.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders Uses Beer To Explains Tax-Cuts!
Ahhhhh, I Get It
Did you know that U.S. businesses are taxed at one of the highest rates in the developed world? How bad is it? And why should you care? Watch this short video to find out.
This video is part of a collaborative business and economics project with Job Creators Network. To learn more visit about JCN.
(Originally posted in July of 2012, re-posted as a response to Dennis Prager asking if Paul Krugman has ever debated anyone. RARELY, but here is one of the few examples)
Just so many know, Krugman never debates, and this is one of the only times I am aware of he has. From Video Description:
Tyler Durden submitted this much longer presentation (which I shortened) over at Zero Hedge, and points out the emotional clash between the two economists that is sure to be watched by the many free-marketers out there. Tyler entitled this posting, “The Ultimate Krugman Take-Down,” …he continues:
Forget Ali – Frazier; ignore Santelli – Liesman; dismiss Yankees – Red Sox; never mind Silva – Sonnen; the new undisputed standard by which all showdowns will be judged happened in Spain over the weekend. During a debate on Europe’s crisis, Pedro Schwartz (a mild-mannered Spanish ‘Austrian’ economics professor) took on the heavyweight Paul ‘I coulda been a Fed Chair contender’ Krugman, and – in our humble opinion – wiped the floor with his Keynesian philosophy. From the medicinal use of more debt to fix too much debt, to the Japanization of world economies and the demand-side bias of every- and any-thing – interested only in the short-term economic growth; the gentlemanly Spaniard notes, with regard to the European crisis, the fact that “Keynesians got us into this mess and now we have to sacrifice our principals so that they can get us out of this mess”. Humble and generous in his praise – though definitively serious with his criticism – Schwartz opines: “Often Nobel prize winners are tempted to pontificate on matters that are outside the specialty in which they have excelled,” noting “the mantle of authority whereby what ever they say – whether sensible or not – is accepted with resignation from some and enthusiasm by others.” Krugman’s red-faced anger is evident at the conclusion as he even refused to shake Schwartz’s hand after the debate.
Dennis Prager reads from an IBD ARTICLE about the benefits from Trump’s tax plan… AS WELL AS starting out the show by showing the ludicrous nature of the envious Left. I include a dissenting call to end the upload.
GAY PATRIOT has some key bullet points:
Here is an excerpt from the article mentioned:
President Trump’s tax plan, unveiled on Thursday, slashes the corporate tax rate from a top rate of nearly 50% to 15%. It’s a smart move. Not only will it kick start the economy and job growth, but it’s likely he’ll be able to get bipartisan support.
Right now, there is no consensus on broad-based tax reform. So, at least for now, a broad tax reform package including tax cuts, fewer deductions and a flattening of tax rates may be tough to achieve. Even Republicans, who are eager for some kind reform, remain split on how it should be done.
But nearly everyone agrees that the current U.S. corporate tax rate is outrageous.
Sadly, average Americans often don’t agree. They believe that corporations pay no taxes. But that’s not true. U.S. corporations pay a top marginal rate of close to 40%, compared to an average of about 24% for all the OECD nations.
That puts U.S. companies at a tremendous disadvantage to other nations’ companies and reduces the money they have available for investing and hiring new workers.
We don’t know what else Trump’s tax reform will contain, but just cutting corporate taxes would be a big winner. Even President Obama supported the idea in 2015, when he and congressional Democrats were considering a deal that would cut corporate tax rates in exchange for spending more on infrastructure.
But apart from Washington political wrangling, the economic reasons for a corporate tax cut are even more compelling.
Back in 2015, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation ran the numbers and concluded that cutting the corporate rate to 15% would boost GDP by 3.7% and actually increase federal revenues by 0.3%.
More importantly, it would be a huge boon to working Americans: “Depending on the size of the corporate rate reduction, we would expect to see an additional 425,000 to 613,000 new jobs, and wages would increase between 1.9% and 3.6% over the long-term.”
That means higher after-tax incomes for all. Talk about a stagnation-buster. That’s a recipe for 3% plus annual GDP growth, something that never happened during the Obama years. The plan that was Trump unveiled Thursday said that one of the goals of tax reform was to “grow the economy and create millions of jobs.”
[….]
Nor is this a “tax cut for the rich,” as some have claimed.
As IBD noted last September, the “dirty little secret” of corporate taxes is that corporations don’t actually even pay them. Average Americans — that’s you — do. You pay it through lower wages, lower returns on investments and retirement accounts, and higher prices for the things you buy.
A study last year by The R Street Institute noted that “some studies suggest that as much as three-fourths of direct corporate income-tax costs are borne by a firm’s workers.”
High corporate tax rates are also why many big American companies are undergoing “inversions” — merging into a foreign company, then relocating their headquarters to the foreign country to avoid super-high U.S. taxes.
In short, our excessively high corporate tax rate does nothing good for the economy, for investors or for workers. While 15% is a very good rate, it would be better to get rid of it entirely….
This is what happens when one party controls government in the state:
(Originally posted on the 27th of January)
People warned the Democrats… “what would happen if a Republican does what your guy did?” Well…
Mark Levin gives us an Econ 101 class on tariffs and taxes. This is why the unions love this because it protects their jobs and not other businesses in the States. An interesting part of the call which I stitched to before the other segment is an article in the Wall Street Journal which notes that the reason car manufacturers build in Mexico is due to free-trade agreements:
Not only will these Executive Orders (E.O.) worsen us in the long run (unless this administration has something else up their sleeve), it is the same thing we gripped about when Obama was President and Left leaning legal scholar, Jonathan Turley said was not what the office of President was intended for. Agreed.
What is interesting is the juxtaposition the Dems find themselves in regarding the E.O.’s. You see, you had many challenges to Obama’s E.O.’s and he holds the record for the most overturned by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in our history as a country. But they were brought to the court mainly by Republican Attorney Generals in a state[s] or a group — or a combination thereof. AND YES, many of these actions Trump is taking with his pen and paper are just as unconstitutional. However, in 2018 we find this:
This means that since the Democrats know their constituents are already upset enough at them to switch parties… why would you rock the boat on some of these executive orders that they know their constituents like. Like the car manufactures/unions. What Democrat in their right mind would bring a case to SCOTUS to overturn something they wish they had did?
Or how bout’ the growing concern in the black community about jobs and the influx of illegal immigrants? You see, they type of people Trump is putting on the Court would vote AGAINST what Trump is doing. They are originalists, and so, the Democrats would certainly win these cases if brought before the conservative Court.
AGAIN… they also have to win in 2018. They are essentially protecting 25-seats… 10 of which are “red-state” seats.
So many of these E.O.’s Trump is writing could easily be overturned if moved forward by the Democrats. Right now however, doing so would be politically dangerous for them. For now at least.
Again, I emphatically agree with HOTAIR… Executive Orders Are Not The Way To Do Policy…Even Good Ones
President Donald Trump’s latest executive order is as good as executive orders come. Trump has banned executive appointees from becoming a lobbyist of the particular branch they served in for five years, plus several other restrictions.
“2. If, upon my departure from the Government, I am covered by the post-employment restrictions on communicating with employees of my former executive agency set forth in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, I agree that I will abide by those restrictions.
“3. In addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraphs 1 and 2, I also agree, upon leaving Government service, not to engage in lobbying activities with respect to any covered executive branch official or non-career Senior Executive Service appointee for the remainder of the Administration.
“4. I will not, at any time after the termination of my employment in the United States Government, engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party which, were it undertaken on January 20, 2017, would require me to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.
“5. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.
This is really good policy, and also delivers on Trump’s “drain the swamp,” rhetoric from the campaign. Ethics reform is something all governments should engage in, because it can increase transparency and keep cronyism from rearing its ugly head. It can possibly save the government money, and reduce the debt.
But there’s still a massive problem. Trump is doing this action through executive order, instead of letting it go through the legislative process. The Constitution is quite clear on which branch originally comes up with rules. From Article I, Section 8, Subsection 14 (emphasis mine):
It’s Congress which develops the rules for government employees, not the president. Trump is acting as CEO of the government (which he’s not), meaning he’s so used to doing things his way, without having to have others sign off on his actions. He’s taking another page out of former President Barack Obama’s playbook, but promising he’ll do it right. ….
(H-T to REGGIE DUNLOP for the above)
What leftist is going to bring the above to the Court? This is how I described it on my Facebook:
Many of the economic one will be too far along to be challenged (like the pipelines for instance). There are 25-Dem seats up in 2018 (10-in red states). Only 7-GOP seats. What Democrats would challenge the E.O. putting tariffs on Mexico (something I hate but unions l-o-v-e). The Dems have already alienated their base… unions.
So I think even though these Democrats could challenge many of these — they are stuck between a rock and a voting booth. And let me also say, the people Trump is putting on the Supreme Court are originalists and would vote these down in a heart beat (bravo for Trump for putting forward such upstanding justices!)… but the cases have to make it there
In other words… if Trump were truly a dictator looking to split the branches of government… he would pick Justices who would support his Executive Orders.
In a very strong wording, John and Ken call people miffed about Trump’s losers: “Honestly, if you are upset about this, you’re a moron.”