[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Economy
See other Economy Articles

Title: Trump’s direction is a road to ruin
Source: The West Australian
URL Source: https://thewest.com.au/opinion/shan ... a-road-to-kansas-ng-b88654352z
Published: Nov 13, 2017
Author: Shane Wright , Economics Editor
Post Date: 2017-11-13 10:23:02 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 826
Comments: 37

Mention Kansas and people’s minds turn to Dorothy, Toto and the yellow brick road.

That view almost always turns on the technicolour version of The Wizard of Oz. Not the black, white, dusty and generally unforgiving opening (and closing) shots of Kansas.

Beyond that, however, it would be difficult for anyone outside of the US (and even outside of the mid-west) to name anything of note about the Sunflower State.

But for the past five years Kansas has also been the centre of an important tax change.

And the proponents of that change have been left with a lot of egg all over their faces.

In 2010, the good people of Kansas elected Republican Sam Brownback as the state’s governor.

His aim was to slash taxes on companies. When I say slash, I actually mean effectively get rid of it.

So in 2012 he took the state’s business tax rate down to zero.

Slashing the state’s business tax to nothing would have a major impact on the budget. But Brownback argued that the increase in economic activity precipitated by the tax nirvana that Kansas would become meant it would be self-funding.

Five years on, the Kansas Budget is a mess. Schools, for instance, had their funding cut so deeply it led to court action while infrastructure repairs such as those for the state’s highways had to be stopped.

As revenues into the budget fell, the state was forced to raise its sales tax. Sales tax, like the GST, is regressive in that lower income earners spend a far greater proportion of their weekly pay cheque than higher income earners.

“Kansas is a beautiful natural experiment of tax reform. An example of what happens in the real world.”

While Brownback has argued the state has taken a hit due to outside factors such as falling commodity prices, none of these problems seem to have affected surrounding states that did not engage in his tax reform.

He claimed his tax cuts would generate 25,000 private sector jobs. Instead, Kansas is ranked 48th of America’s 50 states for job creation.

But the changes did create one important growth area — tax avoidance.

The tax change in Kansas affected so-called “pass-through” entities. In an Australian context, think of the small business, the doctor’s surgery, the accountancy firm, where profits go to the owners.

In a development that you could have seen coming from Balga, a large number of people decided that rather than pay the state income tax (which itself was cut to 3.9 per cent) they reorganised their tax affairs so their “salary” was the tax-free income of the business. Over five years the number doing this grew by 20 per cent.

So problematic has the issue become that the State legislature, controlled by Republicans, over-rode a Brownback veto to increase taxes to help fill the budget hole.

Kansas is a beautiful natural experiment of tax reform. An example of what happens in the real world. Now US President Donald Trump is proposing tax reform with the headlines around the corporate and personal income tax rates.

While much is being made in this country that the Trump plan will leave Australia a “company tax island” with its 30 per cent corporate rate, not much is being said about what the proposals will mean to the US Budget.

At this stage, the best guess is that there’s a $US1.5 trillion shortfall between the tax cuts and the tax increases that are being proposed to help cover its cost.

In recent days there’s been a pushback even among Republicans who have worked out the Trump plan will actually leave up to 30 per cent of the population paying more tax. And that 30 per cent is among middle to lower income-earning Americans, not those at the top.

The richest 0.1 per cent of Americans, based on the current proposal, will share in more than 25 per cent of the gains from the tax reform or the equivalent of $US278,350 each.

That’s just on the budget side of things.

Inside the proposals are plans that would deliver huge benefits to pass-through businesses (like those in Kansas) while exemptions have been made for the real estate industry. Like the one Trump operated in before he became president.

Mr Trump’s heirs would be the biggest winners. America’s existing estate tax would effectively be abolished, delivering huge windfalls to the sons and daughters of America’s richest families.

Critics are fairly declaring the proposals the return of a new Gilded Age to the US. The obvious political issues around the Trump tax plan mean it shouldn’t be taken at face value.

And, as the real world experiment in Kansas shows, any macro-economic modelling of them should also be taken with several grains of salt.

But that hasn’t stopped the Turnbull Government re-engaging on its single biggest tax or economic policy, the plan to cut the nation’s company tax rate to 25 per cent.

Treasury last week released a reheated version of the modelling it did last year on the company tax rate and the “importance” of it to the Australian economy.

It cites, as usual, the shift by a range of nations to lower their corporate tax rates (but fails to mention if they have delivered the promised economic benefits while also not blowing out their budgets).

Some people were enamoured with the claim that fully reducing Australia’s corporate rate, that will cost the Federal Budget about $65 billion, would be offset with a revenue boost worth $30 billion.

Now even my rudimentary mathematics shows that still means a $35 billion hit to the Budget.

And, going back to the original modelling that underpins the Treasury work, you quickly discover it assumed the cost of the company tax cut had to be offset with either very deep spending cuts or an increase in personal income tax.

Neither of those options have been proposed.

The same Treasury paper states that it looks at the likely impact of the US tax cuts on both America and the rest of the world.

But there’s no mention of how such a big hole in the US Budget will be funded or whether it will encourage the sort of tax management so evident in the Kansas example.

In other words, the theory is great. Just don’t ask about the real world. Or the difference between Kansas and Oz.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32.

#10. To: Willie Green (#0) (Edited)

I don't know why there should be any comparison between US proposals and Australian proposals. Australia knows the reality of needing tax revenues, we know we cannot live on debt and we cannot allow it to get out of control as the US has. We don't use funny money to fund our economy. We have stepped back from creating another housing bubble with cheap money as the US did through banking regulation. This is not to say there arn't structural problems such as an inflated housing market, but our economy has grown for 47 contiguous periods, despite the GFC and we have done it with both a taxation regime and tax cuts at various times. The more we tax corporations they more they pour into tax avoidance schemes in places like the Caymans, so we make this outflow bear extortinate rates of penalty. I cannot conceive of the stupid ways in which your taxation system works. A system designed so no one actually pays tax but everyone stuffs about trying to cheat the tax man.

We have solution you know, tax income a little less and make everyone pay a goods and services tax. This gets the rich where it hurts because they do spend money and they spend it on lifestyle but for the middle income and poor it doesn't cost that much more

paraclete  posted on  2017-11-14   7:21:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: paraclete (#10)

Consumption taxes are inherently regressive, punishing the lower class' ability to pay for life's necessities: food, clothing, shelter & medicines...

The rich get richer & the poor get poorer...

It's better to level the playing field with a tax on capital gains and unearned inheritance income.

Willie Green  posted on  2017-11-14   9:50:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Willie Green, Y'ALL (#11)

Consumption taxes are inherently regressive, punishing the lower class' ability to pay for life's necessities: food, clothing, shelter & medicines...

The rich get richer & the poor get poorer...

This does not have to be so. There could be exemptions for basics, and for all previously used items.

It's been estimated that a national sales tax of aprox 25% on all new products would cover the needs of all fed/state/local govts, programs, etc..

Freed from the total mess of our present tax structure, we could all return to living in an economic republic.

Naturally, you cowardly ignored my first posting of this.. Got the guts to discuss the issue, willy?

tpaine  posted on  2017-11-14   22:35:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: tpaine (#19)

It's been estimated that a national sales tax of aprox 25% on all new products would cover the needs of all fed/state/local govts, programs, etc..

When I do the simply math, I get nowhere near that. In 2016, the US retail economy had $5 trillion in sales. Of course, that includes food and things that you would not tax.

If we were to tax the whole retail economy at 25%, we would have $1.25 billion in revenue.

Total spending by federal, state and local government in 2016 was $6.72 trillion.

There is no way to tax the retail economy at any level that will cover government expenditures, because government expenditures exceed the size of the entire retail economy.

If you tax BOTH the retail and WHOLESALE economy, you will have done the equivalent of imposing a VAT. So let's look at that.

The US wholesale trade in 2016 was about $5.9 trillion. So if you hit those sales also at 25%, you would bring in another $1.475 trillion.

So, if you taxed the entirety of wholesale and retail sales in the US at 25%, you would raise about $2.695 trillion, which is only 40% of what you need to fund the government.

And you can be sure that a 25% tax on wholesale would be passed along in the retail price, to be taxed again.

Truth is, all of these schemes for taxing things that avoid taxing accumulated wealth simply will not work, and are not fair. Accumulated wealth is the repository or power, security and new wealth for the wealthy, and that is what must be taxed if you're going to have a fair tax system at levels that do not warp and wreck the economy.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-15   10:37:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Vicomte13 (#21) (Edited)

if you taxed the entirety of --(all)--- sales in the US at 25%, you would raise about $2.695 trillion, which is only 40% of what you need to fund the government.

Truth is, all of these schemes for taxing things ------- simply will not work, - --

Accumulated wealth ------- is what must be taxed if you're going to have a fair tax system ----

OK, -- if we tax only accumulated wealth, does that mean ordinary basic incomes, enough to live on, (say 15/20K per year per individual) would be exempt?

What percentage then, of the remaining wealth [net worth?] would need to be taxed every year?

Or maybe we could just forget about all taxes on sales/income etc.. -- And file a statement of net worth, pay a percentage and be done with all this bullshit?

Sounds good to simple old me. -- so something must be wrong...

tpaine  posted on  2017-11-15   12:10:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: tpaine (#24)

OK, -- if we tax only accumulated wealth, does that mean ordinary basic incomes, enough to live on, (say 15/20K per year per individual) would be exempt?

What percentage then, of the remaining wealth [net worth?] would need to be taxed every year?

Or maybe we could just forget about all taxes on sales/income etc.. -- And file a statement of net worth, pay a percentage and be done with all this bullshit?

Sounds good to simple old me. -- so something must be wrong...

The second point you made is the correct answer.

Income is a wealth increase. Capital gains are increases of wealth. Interest is a wealth increase. Sales are an exchange of wealth - one form for another form - but there is a profit built into one side of it (or else the exchange would not happen commercially) so that one side has an increase of wealth.

It's ALL wealth. What you own: houses, cars, art, gold, money in the bank. What you earn from work. What you earn from your invested money. The increase in value of your house over time.

Our government costs us roughly $6.72 trillion per year. This is probably too much, and could and should be brought down. But let's hold that expense constant for the moment to decide what the gross wealth tax would have to be.

The gross wealth tax would completely replace ALL OTHER TAXATION. Essentially, income, sales and property taxes are double and triple taxation of the same wealth. A gross wealth tax treats all wealth as wealth, and taxes it once, annually, as an aggregate whole. (Yes, there are timing issues, and asset identification issues - but we don't need to go down into the weeds on this first cut.)

Essentially look at all of the current taxes: corporate income, unemployment insurance, social security, medicare, income, capital gains, sales, estate. Zero them out.

We have to get $6.72 trillion out of the gross national wealth to pay for the cost of government at all levels.

There are two ways we can look at it. One is to look at what the Gross National Wealth is, and attach a tax rate to that that will pay the expenses. The problem with that is that Gross National Wealth is not a number that is routinely calculated, so you get considerable variation in the estimates.

The other thing you can do is look at the amount of money we need, and then calculate what the GNW would need to be at certain percentages to pay for it.

If, for example, the tax were fixed at 1%, then if the gross national wealth were $100 trillion, that would bring in $1 trillion, which is not enough to run the government.

In fact, the Gross National Wealth would need to be $672 trillion to be able to tax it all at only 1%.

At 2%, the GNW would need to be $336 trillion.

At 3%, the GNW would need to be $224 trillion.

At 4%, GNW would have to be at least $168 trillion to pay for government.

According to the Bank of Italy, the NET national wealth of the USA in 2016 was $84.784 trillion. But of course the NET number is the gross national wealth (money, securities, real estate, natural resource assets, etc.) MINUS debt.

So, we need to get a figure for the gross debt of the USA and add it to this number to get an approximation of the Gross national wealth.

As of 2014 (I am doing this on the fly, back of the envelope, and that is the closest number I could easily find) the Gross national debt (public and private) of the United States is $60 billion.

So, the total gross wealth of the United States found by combining the 2016 number for net assets, and the 2014 number for gross debt is somewhere around $185 trillion. So, to get $6.72 trillion out of a total gross wealth of $185 trillion would require a gross wealth tax of about 3.63%.

Median household income in the USA in 2016 was $59,359. The median NET household worth in the USA in 2016 was $97,300. I cannot easily find a figure for MEDIAN household debt. The AVERAGE household debt in 2016 was $90,000.

So, the latter two numbers would combine to make an approximate gross household wealth of $187,300.

Applying a 3.63% tax rate - with ZERO deductions or exemptions for any purpose whatever, no exceptions - would produce a Gross Wealth Tax for that family of $6799, which is approximately 11.45% of gross family income.

For most median income families, who already pay Social Security and Medicare tax of 7.25% of their gross income, and also pays income tax at the federal and state level, plus property tax and gasoline and sales taxes, this would represent a very substantial tax cut. The average American family pays $16,027 per year in total taxes, which is about 27% of their income, or 8.55% of their gross wealth.

On the other hand, the rich would definitely pay more than they currently do. Warren Buffett's estimated taxes (mostly capital gains), amount to about $400 million per year. His estimated wealth is $69 billion. (He takes a salary of $100,000 per year from his company.) Currently, Buffet pays about one half of one percent (0.5%) of his wealth as taxes each year. His taxes would go up to 3.63% of his wealth, which would STILL be about 2/3rds less than the average Americans already pay.

The current tax code is monstrously unfair and lopsided. A flat gross wealth tax would be the fairest system, as it would tax every dollar of wealth at the exact same percentage - no matter who owned it or how it was held.

Now, naturally, the rich would scream bloody murder, and the Republicans would move vigorously to stop any such tax structure. They would claim that the rich are being ATTACKED. But in truth, all that this code would do would be to REDUCE the HUGE disparity between the percentage of wealth that working people pay as taxes, and that rich people do. It would be fair, and it would not be particularly burdensome on anybody. For Warren Buffett or any other billionaire to scream that a 3.63% gross wealth tax was a crushing burden, when the general public already pays the equivalent of 8.55%, would be the height of self-serving hypocrisy.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-15   13:46:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Vicomte13 (#25)

Screw your wealth tax idea. Get rid of social programs and let the church and individuals take care of themselves.

You must not believe Jesus when he said he takes care of the birds and we are much more valuable then the birds...

You obviously don't have faith in what God said.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-11-16   9:00:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone (#31)

You must not believe Jesus when he said he takes care of the birds and we are much more valuable then the birds...

You obviously don't have faith in what God said.

I don't think that Jesus means by this what you think he means.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-16   12:59:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 32.

        There are no replies to Comment # 32.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 32.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com