Yes, turn HARD left or the dem party remains an ineffective joke.

There are many problems with the Republican tax bill. That said, we have had bad tax policy for a very long time. In economics, the term used to describe the negative effects of taxes on the production of goods and services or even commerce is "deadweight loss." Deadweight loss can be avoided, however, if we were to shift the tax based to what is called "rent" in economics. Rents are the exchange value associated with natural resources in the ground, locations in towns and cities, the broadcast spectrum and even take-off and landing slots at airports. These are assets not produced by individuals, assets that have a finite supply provided by nature. Urban rents are based almost entirely on locational advantage, and the locational advantages are either associated with geography (e.g., a beach or mountain lot in a thriving tourist area) or the quality of public goods and services provided to the location.

Location rents are today minimally captured by local communities via the property tax, but the property tax also heavily taxes houses and other buildings.

The federal individual income tax could capture rents by combining tax simplification with progressivity. We should exempt all individual incomes up to the national median. Eliminate all other exemptions and deductions, then impose an increasing rate of taxation on higher ranges of income. Most very high incomes are derived not from wages and salaries but from passive and speculative investments. Such gains are called and treated as "capital gains" even though actual capital goods never appreciate in value over time; they depreciate.

Edward J. Dodson, Director

School of Cooperative Individualism

www.cooperative-individualism.org

If all we end up with is GOP Lite and Corporate Democrats -- it won't make all that much difference. Less people "Looking Forward" and less people "Taking Impeachment OFF the table"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes. It is more important to avoid massive civilian casualties in the Korean theater.

Anti-Christ

If you are a wealthy Evangelical or even just a wealthy Christian with large sums in financial reserves, then by definition you are Anti-Christ. Thank you very much.

Lower taxes discourage employee benefits because when corporate taxes go down, the after tax cost to the corporation increases. If the corporation is taxed at 50%, the net cost of $100 of benefits paid to employees is $50 (assuming profitability of the corp); If the taxes are reduced to 20%, that $100 of benefits costs the company $80 after taxes.

The lower tax rate drives up the actual net cash payout for their expenses, reducing the incentive for corporations to offer benefits (or higher salaries) that are not required by law and puts pressure on the company by stockholders to increase After Tax Profit by reducing those benefits.

As a CPA with a Bus Econ degree, I see this lack of understanding all the time. We need to teach economics and basic accounting to all high school students. Everyone should understand these basic concepts that affects every person’s cash situation, not just those who open businesses or take college courses in accounting and economics.

1984 is finally here

The representatives of "we the people" appear to be quite happy about this for some reason

Here is a classic of what is going on. Tim Cook of Apple gets $12.8 million in Compensation plus $89 million in Apple stock. Tim Cook is nothing but a hired hand that happens to have inherited the CEO's position from Apple's founder Steve Jobs. He is living off of the legacy of Steve Jobs and has invented or brought to market virtually nothing on his own. Why not spread some of that wealth that he will never be able to use among the employees of Apple, the ones that really make the company work.

http://observer.com/2017/12/tim-cook-got-a-hefty-pay-raise-despite-iphon...

I have worked for companies that have been driven into the ground by over paid CEO's. They walk away with a golden parachute and more money than they can spend in a lifetime. They do not even have to be smart or competent. Just in the right place at the right time. I am sure that some are very smart but in the case of Charter Communications CEO is he worth (being generous and saying that he works a 72 hour week, 52 weeks per year) 98,000,000/(72 x 52) = $26,175 per hour?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/05/23/ceo-pay-highest-paid-chi...

Most of these types are completely out of touch with reality. They live behind secured gates with private guards. They socialize in private clubs only. They have several homes (with property managers) and travel to them in private jets that land at tax paid airports and are controlled by tax paid FAA. The jets and clubs are tax write offs and/or provided by the company. They donate money to politicians to protect this life style. The Republicans just paid them back. The link in post #10 is well worth watching.

OrgDevGuy #2; ikeberltersen #5. Yeah, lately his blogs are largely taken from the transcripts of his radio show. That's cool, because it's a venue covering a lot of important but difficult topics; plus, you're witnessing Thom's mind as he works live with callers and guests of different political persuasions, along with many others who are experts in their particular fields.

When he puts pen to paper (fingers to keyboard) in the conventional fashion, he usually tightens up his syntax like any professional writer would do. But his on-air program is also a great, easy-to-listen-to resource, especially the commercial-free podcasts. A glimpse into his raw thought processes as they unfold in real time offers a unique, more natural conversational eloquence. Of course that's why he's a popular talk show host as well as an accomplished author.

2950-10K; stopgap. Right on. The best way to balance the economy so that it works for everyone is to bring the wild inflation of wealth at the very top down to realistic levels that would be in more proper ratio to everyone else. And the best way to accomplish that amazing feat is to pass a tax bill that significantly raises taxes on overly concentrated wealth as it reaches heretofore unimaginable heights.

Then taxes can be lowered and benefits increased on the middle and lower classes, so that consumers with money in their pockets to spend can create a natural "aggregate demand" -- not based on personal debt -- and therefore create a vibrant economy. Call it "trickle up," which is how actual successful economies have worked since early man and woman first learned to cooperate by trading resources and labor in order to collectively survive and thrive.

Ignore whiny rich bastards pleading for the rest of us taxpayers to please understand their horrible and terrible plight, sniff, and to please provide the poor babies much needed "relief." (And change their diapers while you're at it.)

Bullsh*t! Reframe the argument: taxes are not penalties to "punish" the so-called "makers" just because they had the wherewithal to get fabulously rich, as they would have us believe. It's about objective reality, simple math, and pragmatically calculating what makes for a healthy economy; it's not about the gossipy lives of the rich and famous and how they are God's gift to humanity in some Ayn Rand, Koched-out fantasy. So just follow the damn money and tax accordingly. What the hell is wrong with that?

Progressive, graduated taxes are more than a fair price to live in a large modern country. Wealth is not generated in a vacuum; and the more it accumulates and concentrates, the more it utilizes an infrastructure that must be paid for, including: an education system that produces an educated workforce; public investment in unbiased scientific research void of partisan politics and aggressive greed; water and sewer systems; electrical and communication grids; public transportation routes and structures; roads and bridges; fire departments; a police force; a court system; a postal system; an emergency response system; a National Guard; international diplomacy and defense treaties/agreements; forests and other protected publicly owned lands and waterways (ours, not theirs); clean air, water, and food; product safety guidelines; etc., etc. -- the rules of the road, so to speak.

Or, the alternative: Try making that killer billion-dollar Wall Street deal in the Mojave Desert, cowboy ...and here's a bottle of water to get you started. Ain't socialism great!

Oh, you'd like a little more, a better balance between reasonable capitalism and reasonable socialism, between "private enterprise" and "the commons," to use our forefathers' words? Well finally, welcome to the real debate.

The link provided by Legend, with Judy Woodruff interviewing Warren Buffet, says it all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUxY_KmvXOM

As usual, conservatives like Kend don't bother to ask why these numbers are the way they are. They just throw the numbers out there for whatever propaganda value might be garnered from them without ever asking why? Maybe his numbers are right, but they don't really tell the real story.

The question that Kend should be asking is why do CEOs now make 500 times the wages of blue-collar workers when in the past they only made 40 to 50 times what blue-collars workers made.

Kend's numbers only prove the extreme disparity of wealth that has resulted from Reaganomics. Of course the super wealthy will pay the bulk of income tax, since blue-collar wages, relative to inflation, have remained flat during the era of "tickle down economics," while the wealth of the 1% has skyrocketed.

After all, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

Bottom line, Reaganomics has created a nation of turnips.

#12 - That's an observable constant