Technology

The Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017, Story 1: Democrats (Liberal, Progressive & Socialist Wing) and Republicans (Liberal & Progressive Wing) of The Two Party Tyranny Are All Marxist Now — Big Government Bubble Tax Surcharge of 6% Increases Rate From 39.6% to 45.6% — Class Warfare — Eat The Rich — Videos — Part 2 of 2 — Story 2: Republican Tax Cut Will Not Make America Great Again — Missing Is Real Government Spending Cuts That Results in A Balanced Budget By 2020 or 2024 — Spending Addiction Disorder (SAD) or Government Spending Obesity — Alive and Well — Videos — Story 3: A Broad Based Consumption Tax Replacing The Current U.S. Income Tax System Along The Lines of The FairTax or Fair Tax Less With Generous Monthly Tax Prebates and Limiting Federal Government Expenditures to 90% of Taxes Collected Will Make America Great Again — Videos

Posted on November 3, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, City, College, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, House of Representatives, Human, Impeachment, Independence, Labor Economics, Law, Life, Media, Mike Huckabee, Monetary Policy, National Interest, Networking, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Radio, Rand Paul, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Resources, Rule of Law, Scandals, Senate, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United Kingdom, Videos, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Image result for summary of communist manifesto

Image result for quotes on taxationImage result for fairtax

Image result for cartoons about house republican tax reform

Image result for cartoons on trump tax reform house bill

Image result for cartoons on trump tax reform house bill

 

Story 1: Democrats (Liberal, Progressive & Socialist Wing) and Republicans (Liberal & Progressive Wing) of The Two Party Tyranny Are All Marxist Now — Big Government Bubble Tax Surcharge of 6% Increases Rate From 39.6% to 45.6% — Class Warfare — Eat The Rich — Videos —

Image result for summary of communist manifesto

EAT THE RICH!

Is America’s Tax System Fair?

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

John Birch Society Predicted 10 Steps To America’s Destruction 55 Years Ago

Grover Norquist Says House GOP Tax Plan Is a Jobs Bill

The GOP Tax Plan Could End Up Raising Taxes On The Rich

Here’s how Trump’s plan could change your taxes

Winners and losers in the GOP tax plan

Rush Limbaugh UNCOVERS HIDDEN 46 % TAX BRACKET in The Republican, Trump Tax Bill

The Trump Tax Plan – Rush Limbaugh Opinion and Analysis

A look inside the GOP tax bill

The Progressive Income Tax: A Tale of Three Brothers

Socialism Makes People Selfish

What Congressional Conservatives Think About Ted Cruz & Donald Trump

Gohmert Weighs in on GOP Tax Reform Delay

GOP unity (for now) on House tax plan

The tax overhaul is Republicans’ top priority ahead of next year’s elections, and lawmakers are desperate for a victory after the Obamacare repeal failed.

Updated 

House Republicans largely put aside their often sharp policy and ideological differences Thursday to warmly greet the tax overhaul legislation introduced by GOP leaders.

But, as expected, it didn’t take long for various interest groups that feel stung by the measure to make their views known, and that will likely make the lawmakers’ unity fleeting.

Even before the legislation was formally unveiled, one of the most powerful groups in conservative circles, Americans for Prosperity, warned that plans to slap a tax on imports from U.S. companies that move jobs abroad “has the potential to derail much-needed reform.”

That was followed by denunciations from the influential National Federation of Independent Business, a small business lobby; the National Association of Home Builders; Independent Sector, which represents charities; the National Farmers Union; and even the American Institute of Architects.

That will give lawmakers plenty to think about as they brace for lobbyists to descend on their offices to fight for and against parts of the bill that will affect their profits, charitable donations and public services.

But Thursday appeared to be all about rallying around what could be the only major legislative accomplishment Republicans have to take into the 2018 midterm elections.

Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said he didn’t hear enough concerns among members of his party when they were briefed on the plan to slow its momentum.

“I don’t think anyone voiced anything that was just overwhelmingly a shutdown concern, to my surprise,” Walker said. “Guys from different caucuses, from different groups, were all speaking in favor of it. Not everybody’s happy about everything but … I was actually a little taken aback at how much unity there was in the room at the overall package.”

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), head of the often balky Freedom Caucus, said he had some concerns about proposed changes to housing tax breaks and also with how the bill treats small businesses, but said he’s nevertheless “leaning yes” on the plan.

“I believe we’ll get there, and I’ll be optimistic that the few remaining issues will get addressed,” he said.

Lawmakers from high-tax states continued to grumble that the proposal would eliminate a deduction for state and local income and sales taxes, while keeping a property tax write-off that would be capped at $10,000.

“The property tax is still too low,” Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) told reporters, adding that he’s already made a personal plea to House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas). “I’ve done the math for my own state, my own district, and I’ve given the chairman of Ways and Means what I think the number needs to be.”

The unveiling of the 429-page bill — and a summary that runs 82 pages — kicks off what is sure to be a grueling slog to get legislation to President Donald Trump by the end of the year. The Senate is expected to follow up with its own plan as early as next week.

The bill would benefit a big slice of the American economy, with deep cuts in corporate tax rates, changes designed to make taxes on U.S. multinationals more competitive and tax cuts for individuals that Republicans say will significantly lighten their tax burden.

But it also includes provisions sure to stoke controversy and fierce lobbying, including new limits on the popular mortgage interest deduction. People could only deduct interest on the first $500,000 of loans for newly purchased homes, down from the current $1 million, and lawmakers would eliminate the break for second homes. The bill would also make it harder for people to sell their homes without paying taxes on any capital gains.

Experts warned that some middle-income people could see tax increases under the plan.

While big companies would get a significantly lower 20 percent corporate rate, down from 35 percent, they would face new limits on their ability to deduct interest on their loans, a new global minimum tax on their overseas earnings, and new taxes on U.S. companies heading abroad.

Republicans dropped a contentious plan to curb tax benefits for 401(k) retirement plans, which had GOP lawmakers cheering Brady at a closed door briefing on the plan.

Exactly who would win and lose in the proposal — dubbed the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” — has been a closely guarded secret, and many lawmakers will surely be surprised at the scope of changes needed to make the numbers behind the plan work.

The NFIB announced its opposition, citing restrictions lawmakers included on which small businesses can claim their lower tax rate on unincorporated “pass-through” firms. The issue has been one of the most difficult for lawmakers to work out, and could prove to be one of the most contentious going forward.

Though lawmakers would reduce the rate on those businesses to 25 percent, there would be limits on which firms could take advantage, provisions designed to avoid gaming by wealthy individuals.

Under the proposal, pass-throughs would get the lower rate on 30 percent of their profits, with the remainder taxed at ordinary income tax rates, though there would be circumstances in which businesses could qualify for a bigger share being subject to the special rate. That means, though, that some pass-throughs would actually pay more than 25 percent under the plan.

“This bill leaves too many small businesses behind,” said Juanita Duggan, the group’s president. “We believe that tax reform should provide substantial relief to all small businesses.”

The National Association of Home Builders said the legislation “eviscerates” housing tax benefits, and “abandons middle class taxpayers.”

The National Association of Realtors meanwhile has already begun lobbying against the proposal, running online ads in tax writers’ districts. “Don’t let tax reform become a tax increase for middle-class homeowners,” the ad says.

Independent Sector worries charities would suffer because the bill’s expansion of the standard deduction means far fewer people would take an itemized deduction for charitable giving. “The bill moves in the wrong direction,” said Daniel Cardinali, the group’s president.

Other business groups embraced the plan, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable.

“This bold tax reform bill is exactly what our nation needs to get our economy growing faster,” said Neil Bradley, a senior vice president at the Chamber of Commerce. Said Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan Chase & Co. and the Business Roundtable: “We support this tax reform effort because it is good for all Americans.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan and his leadership team want to stay ahead of lobbyists and constituencies that they know will be at their door. They plan to create an interactive presentation for each member to show the bill’s economic impact on their district, and what different adjustments would do.

“The substantive issue is how all these changes add up for families in my district or other members’ districts,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), the Republican chief deputy whip. “And once people can see that then that will determine their level of support.”

The plan is Republicans’ top priority ahead of next year’s elections, and lawmakers are desperate for a victory to take to voters after the failed campaign to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans are hoping to move it quickly through the House, with committee action penciled in for next week. Lawmakers aim to forward it on to the Senate later this month. Senate Republicans are working on their own competing plan they aim to unveil next week. Lawmakers hope to land a compromise on Trump’s desk by the end of the year.

House leaders, who have written the plan in secret, had avoided identifying most of the breaks that would be quashed under the proposal in order to keep lobbyists at bay. But many Republicans had little inkling of what’s in the bill, and the strategy means leaders have not had much opportunity to build support among rank-and-file members for controversial proposals that will surely get more attention in the coming days.

The bill is loaded with sure-to-be contentious ideas affecting broad swathes of the economy. It would delete a long-standing deduction for people with high medical bills — including those with chronic conditions. People would have to live longer in their homes, under the bill, to qualify for tax-free treatment of capital gains when they sell their houses.

It would also kill long-standing breaks for adoptions, and for student loan interest costs. Private universities would face a new 1.4 percent tax on their investment earnings from their endowments. The Work Opportunity Credit, which encourages businesses to hire veterans, would be eliminated. So too would the New Markets Tax credit, which encourages investment in poor areas.

Tax benefits related to fringe benefits would be curtailed. It would also dump a long-standing break for casualty losses that allow people to deduct things lost in fires and storms, although it would continue to allow the provision for people hit by hurricanes — no doubt reflecting the influence of Brady, whose Houston-area district was hit by Hurricane Harvey.

Foreign companies operating in the United States would face higher taxes under the proposal, as would companies such as pharmaceutical firms that move overseas and want to sell goods back to the United States.

The bill would cut taxes over the next decade by $1.487 trillion, according to the official Joint Committee on Taxation. The estimate also shows the bill would likely run afoul of the Senate’s “Byrd rule,” named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), which bars provisions adding to the government’s long-term debt.

For individuals, the plan would reduce the number of tax brackets to four from the current seven, with the top rate remaining at 39.6 percent. Republicans would more than double the income threshold at which the top rate would kick in to $1 million for married couples. They would simultaneously raise taxes on the rich, though, by limiting their ability to take advantage of their lowest income tax bracket. The 35 percent bracket would begin at $260,000 for married couples, and the threshold for a 25 percent bracket would be $90,000 under the plan.

Republicans would also get rid of personal exemptions, which are designed to adjust tax burdens for family size. The plan would instead double the standard deduction while increasing both the size of the child tax credit to $1,600, from the current $1000, while increasing the income threshold at which it could be claimed. They would also create a new $300 credit for adult dependents as well as another $300 “family flexibility” credit.

The bill would ease the estate tax by doubling the threshold at which it would kick in before eventually repealing it.

Aside from the lower corporate tax rate, businesses would also get the ability to immediately write off their investment expenses for the next five years. They would get a one-time reduced rate of 12 percent on their overseas earnings on liquid assets and a 5 percent rate on illiquid assets like overseas factories.

But they would face new limits on their ability to deduct interest payments on the money they borrow. They would also face a new 10 percent foreign minimum tax targeting companies that squirrel away money in offshore tax havens. Life insurance companies would lose a number of tax benefits, private activity bonds would be eliminated and tax-exempt bonds could no longer be used to help build professional sports stadiums.

Colin Wilhelm, Rachael Bade and Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/02/tax-reform-house-gop-plan-244453

Leadership

The majority party members and the minority party members meet separately to select their leaders. Third parties rarely have had enough members to elect their own leadership, and independents will generally join one of the larger party organizations to receive committee assignments. A party caucus or conference is the name given to a meeting of or organization of all party members in the House. During these meetings, party members discuss matters of concern.

Learn more about the history of House leadership.

Speaker of the House

Speaker Paul D. Ryan

Rep. Paul D. Ryan

Elected by the whole of the House of Representatives, the Speaker acts as leader of the House and combines several roles: the institutional role of presiding officer and administrative head of the House, the role of leader of the majority party in the House, and the representative role of an elected member of the House. The Speaker of the House is second in line to succeed the President, after the Vice President.

Republican Leadership

Rep. McCarthy

Majority Leader

Rep. Kevin McCarthy

Represents Republicans on the House floor.

Rep. Scalise

Majority Whip

Rep. Steve Scalise

Assists leadership in managing party’s legislative program.

Rep. McMorris Rodgers

Republican Conference Chairman

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Heads organization of all Republican Party members in the House.

Rep. Messer

Republican Policy Committee Chairman

Rep. Luke Messer

Heads Conference forum for policy development.

Democratic Leadership

Democratic Leaders Pelosi

Democratic Leader

Rep. Nancy Pelosi

Represents Democrats on the House floor.

Rep. Hoyer

Democratic Whip

Rep. Steny Hoyer

Assists leadership in managing party’s legislative program.

Rep. Clyburn

Assistant Democratic Leader

Rep. James Clyburn

Works with caucuses and as liaison to Appropriations Committee.

Rep. Crowley

Democratic Caucus Chairman

Rep. Joseph Crowley

Heads organization of all Democratic Party members in the House.

Republican Party House Leadership

 

 Democratic Party House Leadership

 https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard?chamber=house&state=&party=R

The GOP’s hidden 46% tax bracket

If you’re rich enough, some of your income is taxed at a rate unseen since the ‘80s.

House Republicans claim the tax plan they introduced Thursday keeps the top individual rate unchanged at 39.6 percent—the level at which it’s been capped for much of the past quarter-century. But a little-noticed provision effectively creates a new band in which income is taxed at over 45 percent.

Thanks to a quirky proposed surcharge, Americans who earn more than $1 million in taxable income would trigger an extra 6 percent tax on the next $200,000 they earn—a complicated change that effectively creates a new, unannounced tax bracket of 45.6 percent.

It hasn’t been advertised by Republicans, who have described their plan as maintaining the current top tax rate of 39.6 percent. And it goes against decades of GOP orthodoxy that raising taxes on the rich discourages work and reduces economic growth. Reached by phone, Steve Moore, a tax expert at The Heritage Foundation, said the surcharge was news to him. “I was just in a briefing with the White House on this,” he said. “They didn’t mention that. It seems kind of bizarre to me.”

The new rate stems from a provision in the bill intended to help the government recover, from the very wealthy, some of the benefits that lower-income taxpayers enjoy. Under the House GOP plan, all individuals—no matter whether they earn $35,000, $150,000 or $10 million—would pay the lowest rate, 12 percent, on their first $45,000 in taxable income. That’s a normal feature of current American tax law. But in the new plan, House Republicans want to claw back some of that benefit for individuals who earn more than $1 million, or couples earning more than $1.2 million.

Here’s how it would work: After the first $1 million in taxable income, the government would impose a 6 percent surcharge on every dollar earned, until it made up for the tax benefits that the rich receive from the low tax rate on that first $45,000. That surcharge remains until the government has clawed back the full $12,420, which would occur at about $1.2 million in taxable income. At that point, the surcharge disappears and the top tax rate drops back to 39.6 percent. This type of tax is sometimes called a “bubble tax,” because the marginal tax rate effectively bubbles up for a brief period before falling back to a lower level.

According to POLITICO’s calculation, the surcharge could raise more than $50 billion over a decade—money that will help the GOP meet the $1.5 trillion in increased deficits that their budget allows for and required to balance out tax cuts elsewhere. Balancing out those costs means that the bill can pass through budget reconciliation, and Senate Democrats can’t filibuster the bill.

Whom would it affect? According to the Internal Revenue Service, 438,000 tax filers had more than $1 million in taxable income in 2015, most of whom also make more than $1.2 million—meaning they’d pay the full additional $12,420 in bubble tax. Altogether, that surcharge could have raised roughly $5 billion in 2015, the latest year in which numbers are available, meaning it could potentially bring in around $50 billion over the next decade. That’s not huge money in a plan that cuts taxes $1.5 trillion—but every bit counts.

A spokesperson for the House Ways and Means Committee did not dispute the math but characterized the bubble as “the phase-out of a tax benefit” for high earners, rather than a surcharge. “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provides tax relief at every income level,” said the spokesperson.

The idea of a bubble tax is not exactly new. In fact, the corporate tax code currently contains a bubble tax, which the GOP plan would eliminate. But the hidden nature of bubble taxes concerns experts who believe that the tax code should be easy to understand. “It certainly doesn’t promote tax transparency in terms of letting people readily understand the true rate structure,” said Alan Viard, a tax expert at the American Enterprise Institute. “I don’t think many people in the tax policy community are enthused about this kind of provision.”

The bubble tax also represents something of a break from nearly all Republican tax plans for the past few decades. Supply-side conservatives have long complained that the current tax rates on top earners are too high, discouraging work and reducing economic growth. House Republicans proposed lowering the top rate to 33 percent in the tax blueprint that they released last year. Over the past few weeks, faced with pressure from President Donald Trump to counter critics who said the plan is a giveaway to the rich and needing additional revenue, GOP leaders acceded to leaving the top rate unchanged. For a party that has focused intently on lowering marginal tax rates, it was a big concession.

For Democrats, the extra $50 billion from the rich is almost certain not to change their criticisms that the plan contains huge giveaways to the rich in the form of corporate tax cuts and the new 25 percent rate for so-called “pass through” businesses, which include everything from small businesses to hedge funds.

The bubble tax, in other words, is a way for the GOP to quietly raise much-needed revenue without changing the broader features of the bill. But it does mean that the top marginal tax rate would rise above 40 percent for the first time since 1986—the last year that Congress overhauled the tax code.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/11/02/the-gops-hidden-46-tax-bracket-000570

Rand Paul: Have to Cut Taxes on Top 1 Percent or It’s Not a ‘Significant Tax Cut’

The Kentucky senator says members of Congress have bought into the ‘class warfare’ of the Left

by Kathryn Blackhurst | Updated 02 Nov 2017 at 2:15 PM

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Thursday on “The Laura Ingraham Show” that the House’s tax plan will deliver economic growth, although it doesn’t really constitute “a significant tax cut” as President Donald Trump said it would.

The House’s watered-down Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, released Thursday, would reduce the number of income tax brackets to four, with rates of zero percent, 12 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent. In addition, the corporate tax rate drops from 35 percent to 20 percent — short of the 15 percent tax rate Trump championed on the campaign trail, but still a significant change.

Although Paul applauded some aspects of the bill’s content, he expressed disappointment, saying the proposed legislation as it now stands wouldn’t deliver the “significant tax cut” Trump and Republicans promised.

“If you don’t cut the top 1 percent, you don’t really have a significant tax cut,” Paul told LifeZette Editor-in-Chief Laura Ingraham. “What they’ve done is, they’ve bought into the class warfare on the individual side.”

“So at the top, there’s not going to be much of a tax cut. There will be some. And in the middle, there’s going to be a little bit — there’s mostly going to be eliminating deductions. And at the bottom, the bottom already don’t pay much income tax and will continue not to pay much income tax,” Paul added.

The senator from Kentucky said that if the U.S. wants to create jobs and keep them in the country, Congress must “lessen the punishment” it has doled out on corporations and the top 1 percent of income earners.

“We’re punishing corporations and the workers of those corporations so much that companies are fleeing and going abroad. So we have the highest corporate income tax in the world. It’s going down to 20 percent,” Paul said. “The president’s been a good leader on this. He has pushed up until the last minute of the last hour last night. House leadership is still trying to not give him the corporate tax cut he’s asked for.”

Even though the bill would only lower the corporate tax rate to 20 percent, Paul said this move still would “be huge” for the country.

“The best news out of this is, lowering the corporate rate will help the country. And I think we will see growth,” Paul said. “Already we’re seeing about 3 percent growth in the country because of the enthusiasm for President Trump and his policies. I think we’re going to get 4 or 5 percent growth if we get this thing through, within a year or two.”

“For the individuals, it’s not as good as I would like. I would like to see every individual up and down get a lower rate, and particularly on the top part of the spectrum because the top part of the spectrum pays most of the taxes,” Paul continued.

But the Democrats have been particularly effective in pushing the narrative that tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans disadvantage poorer Americans, and many Republicans have found themselves convinced by portions of these emotional arguments, Paul suggested.

“We have to understand that the owners of our businesses — the people we work for — are richer than us. They pay more taxes,” Paul said. “But if you lower their taxes, they will either buy stuff or hire more people. If you raise their taxes, it goes into the nonproductive economy, which is Washington, D.C., and it will be squandered.”

“So really, even if rich people get a tax cut, we should all stand up and cheer because it means more jobs for us because you’re leaving more money in the private sector,” Paul continued. “So I’m one of the few that will stand up on TV and say everybody’s taxes should go down, including the wealthy.”

(photo credit, homepage image: Rand PaulCC BY-SA 2.0, by Gage Skidmore; photo credit, article image: Rand PaulCC BY-SA 2.0, by Gage Skidmore)

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/rand-paul-well-see-growth-but-this-isnt-asignificant-tax-cut/

The Communist Manifesto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Communist Manifesto
Communist-manifesto.png

First edition, in German
Author Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Translator Samuel Moore
Country United Kingdom
Language German
Publication date
late-February 1848

The Communist Manifesto (originally Manifesto of the Communist Party) is an 1848 political pamphlet by German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Commissioned by the Communist League and originally published in London (in German as Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei) just as the revolutions of 1848 began to erupt, the Manifesto was later recognised as one of the world’s most influential political documents. It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and then-present) and the problems of capitalism and the capitalist mode of production, rather than a prediction of communism’s potential future forms.

The Communist Manifesto summarises Marx and Engels’ theories about the nature of society and politics, that in their own words, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. It also briefly features their ideas for how the capitalist society of the time would eventually be replaced by socialism.

Synopsis

The Communist Manifesto is divided into a preamble and four sections, the last of these a short conclusion. The introduction begins by proclaiming “A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre”. Pointing out that parties everywhere—including those in government and those in the opposition—have flung the “branding reproach of communism” at each other, the authors infer from this that the powers-that-be acknowledge communism to be a power in itself. Subsequently, the introduction exhorts Communists to openly publish their views and aims, to “meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself”.

The first section of the Manifesto, “Bourgeois and Proletarians”, elucidates the materialist conception of history, that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Societies have always taken the form of an oppressed majority living under the thumb of an oppressive minority. In capitalism, the industrial working class, or proletariat, engage in class struggle against the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie. As before, this struggle will end in a revolution that restructures society, or the “common ruin of the contending classes”. The bourgeoisie, through the “constant revolutionising of production [and] uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions” have emerged as the supreme class in society, displacing all the old powers of feudalism. The bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its labour power, creating profit for themselves and accumulating capital. However, in doing so, the bourgeoisie serves as “its own grave-diggers”; the proletariat inevitably will become conscious of their own potential and rise to power through revolution, overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

“Proletarians and Communists”, the second section, starts by stating the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class. The communists’ party will not oppose other working-class parties, but unlike them, it will express the general will and defend the common interests of the world’s proletariat as a whole, independent of all nationalities. The section goes on to defend communism from various objections, including claims that it advocates “free love” or disincentivises people from working. The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands—among them a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank; expansion of publicly owned etc.—the implementation of which would result in the precursor to a stateless and classless society.

The third section, “Socialist and Communist Literature”, distinguishes communism from other socialist doctrines prevalent at the time—these being broadly categorised as Reactionary Socialism; Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism; and Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. While the degree of reproach toward rival perspectives varies, all are dismissed for advocating reformism and failing to recognise the pre-eminent revolutionary role of the working class. “Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties”, the concluding section of the Manifesto, briefly discusses the communist position on struggles in specific countries in the mid-nineteenth century such as France, Switzerland, Poland, and Germany, this last being “on the eve of a bourgeois revolution”, and predicts that a world revolution will soon follow. It ends by declaring an alliance with the social democrats, boldly supporting other communist revolutions, and calling for united international proletarian action—Working Men of All Countries, Unite!.

Writing

Only surviving page from the first draft of the Manifesto, handwritten by Marx

In spring 1847 Marx and Engels joined the League of the Just, who were quickly convinced by the duo’s ideas of “critical communism”. At its First Congress in 2–9 June, the League tasked Engels with drafting a “profession of faith”, but such a document was later deemed inappropriate for an open, non-confrontational organisation. Engels nevertheless wrote the “Draft of the Communist Confession of Faith“, detailing the League’s programme. A few months later, in October, Engels arrived at the League’s Paris branch to find that Moses Hess had written an inadequate manifesto for the group, now called the League of Communists. In Hess’s absence, Engels severely criticised this manifesto, and convinced the rest of the League to entrust him with drafting a new one. This became the draft Principles of Communism, described as “less of a credo and more of an exam paper.”

On 23 November, just before the Communist League’s Second Congress (29 November – 8 December 1847), Engels wrote to Marx, expressing his desire to eschew the catechism format in favour of the manifesto, because he felt it “must contain some history.” On the 28th, Marx and Engels met at Ostend in Belgium, and a few days later, gathered at the Soho, London headquarters of the German Workers’ Education Association to attend the Congress. Over the next ten days, intense debate raged between League functionaries; Marx eventually dominated the others and, overcoming “stiff and prolonged opposition”,[1] in Harold Laski‘s words, secured a majority for his programme. The League thus unanimously adopted a far more combative resolution than that at the First Congress in June. Marx (especially) and Engels were subsequently commissioned to draw up a manifesto for the League.

Upon returning to Brussels, Marx engaged in “ceaseless procrastination”, according to his biographer Francis Wheen. Working only intermittently on the manifesto, he spent much of his time delivering lectures on political economy at the German Workers’ Education Association, writing articles for the Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung, and giving a long speech on free trade. Following this, he even spent a week (17–26 January 1848) in Ghent to establish a branch of the Democratic Association there. Subsequently, having not heard from Marx for nearly two months, the Central Committee of the Communist League sent him an ultimatum on 24 or 26 January, demanding he submit the completed manuscript by 1 February. This imposition spurred Marx on, who struggled to work without a deadline, and he seems to have rushed to finish the job in time. (For evidence of this, historian Eric Hobsbawm points to the absence of rough drafts, only one page of which survives.)

In all, the Manifesto was written over 6–7 weeks. Although Engels is credited as co-writer, the final draft was penned exclusively by Marx. From the 26 January letter, Laski infers that even the League considered Marx to be the sole draftsman (and that he was merely their agent, imminently replaceable). Further, Engels himself wrote in 1883 that “The basic thought running through the Manifesto … belongs solely and exclusively to Marx.” Although Laski doesn’t disagree, he suggests that Engels underplays his own contribution with characteristic modesty, and points out the “close resemblance between its substance and that of the [Principles of Communism]”. Laski argues that while writing the Manifesto, Marx drew from the “joint stock of ideas” he developed with Engels, “a kind of intellectual bank account upon which either could draw freely.”[2]

Publication

Initial publication and obscurity, 1848–72

A scene from the German March Revolution in Berlin, 1848

In late February 1848, the Manifesto was anonymously published by the Workers’ Educational Association (Communistischer Arbeiterbildungsverein) at Bishopsgate in the City of London. Written in German, the 23-page pamphlet was titled Manifest der kommunistischen Partei and had a dark-green cover. It was reprinted three times and serialised in the Deutsche Londoner Zeitung, a newspaper for German émigrés. On 4 March, one day after the serialisation in the Zeitung began, Marx was expelled by Belgian police. Two weeks later, around 20 March, a thousand copies of the Manifesto reached Paris, and from there to Germany in early April. In April–May the text was corrected for printing and punctuation mistakes; Marx and Engels would use this 30-page version as the basis for future editions of the Manifesto.

Although the Manifestos prelude announced that it was “to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages”, the initial printings were only in German. Polish and Danish translations soon followed the German original in London, and by the end of 1848, a Swedish translation was published with a new title—The Voice of Communism: Declaration of the Communist Party. In June–November 1850 the Manifesto of the Communist Party was published in English for the first time when George Julian Harney serialised Helen Macfarlane‘s translation in his Chartist magazine The Red Republican. (Her version begins, “A frightful hobgoblin stalks throughout Europe. We are haunted by a ghost, the ghost of Communism.”)[3] For her translation, the Lancashire-based Macfarlane probably consulted Engels, who had abandoned his own English translation half way. Harney’s introduction revealed the Manifestos hitherto-anonymous authors’ identities for the first time.

Immediately after the Cologne Communist Trial of late 1852, the Communist League disbanded itself.

Soon after the Manifesto was published, Paris erupted in revolution to overthrow King Louis Philippe. The Manifesto played no role in this; a French translation was not published in Paris until just before the working-class June Days Uprising was crushed. Its influence in the Europe-wide revolutions of 1848 was restricted to Germany, where the Cologne-based Communist League and its newspaper Neue Rheinische Zeitung, edited by Marx, played an important role. Within a year of its establishment, in May 1849, the Zeitung was suppressed; Marx was expelled from Germany and had to seek lifelong refuge in London. In 1851, members of the Communist League’s central board were arrested by the Prussian police. At their trial in Cologne 18 months later in late 1852 they were sentenced to 3–6 years’ imprisonment. For Engels, the revolution was “forced into the background by the reaction that began with the defeat of the Paris workers in June 1848, and was finally excommunicated ‘by law’ in the conviction of the Cologne Communists in November 1852”.

After the defeat of the 1848 revolutions the Manifesto fell into obscurity, where it remained throughout the 1850s and 1860s. Hobsbawm says that by November 1850 the Manifesto “had become sufficiently scarce for Marx to think it worth reprinting section III … in the last issue of his [short-lived] London magazine”. Over the next two decades only a few new editions were published; these include an (unauthorised and occasionally inaccurate) 1869 Russian translation by Mikhail Bakunin in Geneva and a 1866 edition in Berlin—the first time the Manifesto was published in Germany. According to Hobsbawm, “By the middle 1860s virtually nothing that Marx had written in the past was any longer in print.” However John Cowell-Stepney did publish an abridged version in the Social Economist in August/September 1869,[4] in time for the Basle Congress.

Rise, 1872–1917

In the early 1870s, the Manifesto and its authors experienced a revival in fortunes. Hobsbawm identifies three reasons for this. The first is the leadership role Marx played in the International Workingmen’s Association (aka the First International). Secondly, Marx also came into much prominence among socialists—and equal notoriety among the authorities—for his support of the Paris Commune of 1871, elucidated in The Civil War in France. Lastly, and perhaps most significantly in the popularisation of the Manifesto, was the treason trial of German Social Democratic Party (SPD) leaders. During the trial prosecutors read the Manifesto out loud as evidence; this meant that the pamphlet could legally be published in Germany. Thus in 1872 Marx and Engels rushed out a new German-language edition, writing a preface that identified that several portions that became outdated in the quarter century since its original publication. This edition was also the first time the title was shortened to The Communist Manifesto (Das Kommunistische Manifest), and it became the bedrock the authors based future editions upon. Between 1871 and 1873, the Manifesto was published in over nine editions in six languages; in 1872 it was published in the United States for the first time, serialised in Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly of New York City. However, by the mid 1870s the Communist Manifesto remained Marx and Engels’ only work to be even moderately well-known.

Over the next forty years, as social-democratic parties rose across Europe and parts of the world, so did the publication of the Manifesto alongside them, in hundreds of editions in thirty languages. Marx and Engels wrote a new preface for the 1882 Russian edition, translated by Georgi Plekhanov in Geneva. In it they wondered if Russia could directly become a communist society, or if she would become capitalist first like other European countries. After Marx’s death in 1883, Engels alone provided the prefaces for five editions between 1888 and 1893. Among these is the 1888 English edition, translated by Samuel Moore and approved by Engels, who also provided notes throughout the text. It has been the standard English-language edition ever since.

The principal region of its influence, in terms of editions published, was in the “central belt of Europe”, from Russia in the east to France in the west. In comparison, the pamphlet had little impact on politics in southwest and southeast Europe, and moderate presence in the north. Outside Europe, Chinese and Japanese translations were published, as were Spanish editions in Latin America. This uneven geographical spread in the Manifestos popularity reflected the development of socialist movements in a particular region as well as the popularity of Marxist variety of socialism there. There was not always a strong correlation between a social-democratic party’s strength and the Manifestos popularity in that country. For instance, the German SPD printed only a few thousand copies of the Communist Manifesto every year, but a few hundred thousand copies of the Erfurt Programme. Further, the mass-based social-democratic parties of the Second International did not require their rank and file to be well-versed in theory; Marxist works such as the Manifesto or Das Kapital were read primarily by party theoreticians. On the other hand, small, dedicated militant parties and Marxist sects in the West took pride in knowing the theory; Hobsbawm says “This was the milieu in which ‘the clearness of a comrade could be gauged invariably from the number of earmarks on his Manifesto'”.

Ubiquity, 1917–present

The Bolshevik (1920) by Boris Kustodiev.Following the 1917 Bolshevik takeover of Russia Marx/Engels classics like the Communist Manifesto were distributed far and wide.

Following the October Revolution of 1917 that swept the Vladimir Lenin-led Bolsheviks to power in Russia, the world’s first socialist state was founded explicitly along Marxist lines. The Soviet Union, which Bolshevik Russia would become a part of, was a one-party state under the rule of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Unlike their mass-based counterparts of the Second International, the CPSU and other Leninist parties like it in the Third International expected their members to know the classic works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Further, party leaders were expected to base their policy decisions on Marxist-Leninist ideology. Therefore works such as the Manifestowere required reading for the party rank-and-file.

Therefore the widespread dissemination of Marx and Engels’ works became an important policy objective; backed by a sovereign state, the CPSU had relatively inexhaustible resources for this purpose. Works by Marx, Engels, and Lenin were published on a very large scale, and cheap editions of their works were available in several languages across the world. These publications were either shorter writings or they were compendia such as the various editions of Marx and Engels’ Selected Works, or their Collected Works. This affected the destiny of the Manifesto in several ways. Firstly, in terms of circulation; in 1932 the American and British Communist Parties printed several hundred thousand copies of a cheap edition for “probably the largest mass edition ever issued in English”. Secondly the work entered political-science syllabuses in universities, which would only expand after the Second World War. For its centenary in 1948, its publication was no longer the exclusive domain of Marxists and academicians; general publishers too printed the Manifesto in large numbers. “In short, it was no longer only a classic Marxist document,” Hobsbawm noted, “it had become a political classic tout court.”

Even after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc in the 1990s, the Communist Manifesto remains ubiquitous; Hobsbawm says that “In states without censorship, almost certainly anyone within reach of a good bookshop, and certainly anyone within reach of a good library, not to mention the internet, can have access to it.” The 150th anniversary once again brought a deluge of attention in the press and the academia, as well as new editions of the book fronted by introductions to the text by academics. One of these, The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition by Verso, was touted by a critic in the London Review of Books as being a “stylish red-ribboned edition of the work. It is designed as a sweet keepsake, an exquisite collector’s item. In Manhattan, a prominent Fifth Avenue store put copies of this choice new edition in the hands of shop-window mannequins, displayed in come-hither poses and fashionable décolletage.”

Legacy

“With the clarity and brilliance of genius, this work outlines a new world-conception, consistent materialism, which also embraces the realm of social life; dialectics, as the most comprehensive and profound doctrine of development; the theory of the class struggle and of the world-historic revolutionary role of the proletariat—the creator of a new, communist society.”

Vladimir Lenin on the Manifesto, 1914[5]

A number of late-20th- and 21st-century writers have commented on the Communist Manifestos continuing relevance. In a special issue of the Socialist Register commemorating the Manifestos 150th anniversary, Peter Osborne argued that it was ‘the single most influential text written in the nineteenth century.’[6] Academic John Raines in 2002 noted that “In our day this Capitalist Revolution has reached the farthest corners of the earth. The tool of money has produced the miracle of the new global market and the ubiquitous shopping mall. Read The Communist Manifesto, written more than one hundred and fifty years ago, and you will discover that Marx foresaw it all.”[7] In 2003, the English Marxist Chris Harman stated, “There is still a compulsive quality to its prose as it provides insight after insight into the society in which we live, where it comes from and where its going to. It is still able to explain, as mainstream economists and sociologists cannot, today’s world of recurrent wars and repeated economic crisis, of hunger for hundreds of millions on the one hand and ‘overproduction’ on the other. There are passages that could have come from the most recent writings on globalisation.”[8]Alex Callinicos, editor of International Socialism, stated in 2010 that “This is indeed a manifesto for the 21st century.”[9] Writing in The London Evening Standard in 2012, Andrew Neather cited Verso Books‘ 2012 re-edition of The Communist Manifesto, with an introduction by Eric Hobsbawm, as part of a resurgence of left-wing-themed ideas which includes the publication of Owen Jones‘ best-selling Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class and Jason Barker‘s documentary Marx Reloaded.[10]

Soviet Union stamp commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Manifesto

In contrast, critics such as Revisionist Marxist and reformist socialist Eduard Bernstein distinguished between “immature” early Marxism—as exemplified by the Communist Manifestowritten by Marx and Engels in their youth—that he opposed for its violent Blanquist tendencies, and later “mature” Marxism that he supported.[11] This latter form refers to Marx in his later life acknowledging that socialism could be achieved through peaceful means through legislative reform in democratic societies.[12] Bernstein declared that the massive and homogeneous working-class claimed in the Communist Manifestodid not exist, and that contrary to claims of a proletarian majority emerging, the middle-class was growing under capitalism and not disappearing as Marx had claimed. Bernstein noted that the working-class was not homogeneous but heterogeneous, with divisions and factions within it, including socialist and non-socialist trade unions. Marx himself, later in his life, acknowledged that the middle-class was not disappearing in his work Theories of Surplus Value (1863). The obscurity of the later work means that Marx’s acknowledgement of this error is not well known.[13]George Boyer described the Manifesto as “very much a period piece, a document of what was called the ‘hungry’ 1840s.”[14]

Many have drawn attention to the passage in the Manifesto that seems to sneer at the stupidity of the rustic: “The bourgeoisie … draws all nations … into civilisation … It has created enormous cities … and thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy [sic!] of rural life”.[15] As Eric Hobsbawm noted, however:

[W]hile there is no doubt that Marx at this time shared the usual townsman’s contempt for, as well as ignorance of, the peasant milieu, the actual and analytically more interesting German phrase (“dem Idiotismus des Landlebens entrissen”) referred not to “stupidity” but to “the narrow horizons”, or “the isolation from the wider society” in which people in the countryside lived. It echoed the original meaning of the Greek term idiotes from which the current meaning of “idiot” or “idiocy” is derived, namely “a person concerned only with his own private affairs and not with those of the wider community”. In the course of the decades since the 1840s, and in movements whose members, unlike Marx, were not classically educated, the original sense was lost and was misread.[16]

Influences on The Communist Manifesto

Marx and Engel’s political influences were wide-ranging, reacting to and taking inspiration from German idealist philosophy, French socialism, and English and Scottish political economy. The Communist Manifesto also takes influence from literature. In Jacques Derrida’s work, Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International, he uses Shakespeare’s Hamlet to frame a discussion of the history of the International, showing, in the process, the influence that Shakespeare’s work had on Marx and Engel’s writing.[17] In his essay, “Big Leagues: Specters of Milton and Republican International Justice between Shakespeare and Marx,” Christopher N. Warren makes the case that English poet John Milton also had a substantial influence on Marx and Engel’s work.[18]Historians of 19th-century reading habits have confirmed that Marx and Engels would have read these authors, and it is known that Marx loved Shakespeare, in particular.[19][20][21] Milton, Warren argues, also shows a notable influence on The Communist Manifesto: “Looking back on Milton’s era, Marx saw a historical dialectic founded on inspiration in which freedom of the press, republicanism, and revolution were closely joined.”[22] Milton’s republicanism, Warren continues, served as “a useful, in unlikely, bridge” as Marx and Engels sought to forge a revolutionary international coalition.

References

Source text

Footnotes

  1. Jump up^ Laski, Harold (1948). “Introduction”. Communist Manifesto: Socialist LandmarkGeorge Allen and Unwin. p. 22.
  2. Jump up^ Laski, Harold (1948). “Introduction”. Communist Manifesto: Socialist LandmarkGeorge Allen and Unwin. p. 26.
  3. Jump up^ Louise Yeoman. “Helen McFarlane – the radical feminist admired by Karl Marx“. BBC Scotland. 25 November 2012.
  4. Jump up^ Leopold, David (2015). “Marx Engels and Other Socialisms”. In Carver, Terrell; Farr, James. The Cambridge Companion to The Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Jump up^ Marx/Engels Collected Works, Volume 6, p. xxvi
  6. Jump up^ Osborne, Peter. 1998. “Remember the Future? The Communist Manifesto as Historical and Cultural Form” in Panitch, Leo and Colin Leys, Eds., The Communist Manifesto Now: Socialist Register, 1998 London: Merlin Press, p. 170. Available online from the Socialist Register archives. Retrieved November 2015.
  7. Jump up^ Raines, John (2002). “Introduction”. Marx on Religion (Marx, Karl). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. p. 5.
  8. Jump up^ Harman, Chris (2010). “The Manifesto and the World of 1848”. The Communist Manifesto (Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich). Bloomsbury, London: Bookmarks. p. 3.
  9. Jump up^ Callinicos, Alex (2010). “The Manifesto and the Crisis Today”. The Communist Manifesto (Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich). Bloomsbury, London: Bookmarks. p. 8.
  10. Jump up^ “The Marx effect”The London Evening Standard. 23 April 2012. Retrieved 8 May 2012.
  11. Jump up^ Steger, Manfred B. The Quest for Evolutionary Socialism: Eduard Bernstein And Social Democracy. Cambridge, England, UK; New York City, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1997. pp. 236–37.
  12. Jump up^ Micheline R. Ishay. The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. Berkeley and Lose Angeles, California: University of California Press, 2008. p. 148.
  13. Jump up^ Michael Harrington. Socialism: Past and Future. Reprint edition of original published in 1989. New York City: Arcade Publishing, 2011. pp. 249–50.
  14. Jump up^ Boyer 1998, p. 151.
  15. Jump up^ The [sic!] is that of Joseph Schumpeter; see Schumpeter 1997, p. 8 n2.
  16. Jump up^ Hobsbawm 2011, p. 108.
  17. Jump up^ Derrida, Jacques. “What is Ideology?” in Specters of Marx, the state of the debt, the Work of Mourning, & the New International, translated by Peggy Kamuf, Routledge 1994.
  18. Jump up^ Warren, Christopher N (2016). “Big Leagues: Specters of Milton and Republican International Justice between Shakespeare and Marx.” Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development, Vol. 7.
  19. Jump up^ Rose, Jonathan (2001). The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes. Pgs. 26, 36-37, 122-25, 187.
  20. Jump up^ Taylor, Antony (2002). “Shakespeare and Radicalism: The Uses and Abuses of Shakespeare in Nineteenth-Century Popular Politics.” Historical Journal 45, no. 2. Pgs. 357-79.
  21. Jump up^ Marx, Karl (1844). “On the Jewish Question.”
  22. Jump up^ Warren, Christopher N (2016). “Big Leagues: Specters of Milton and Republican International Justice between Shakespeare and Marx.” Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development, Vol. 7. Pg. 372.

External links

Part 2 of 2 — Story 2: Republican Tax Cut Will Not Make America Great Again — Missing Is Real Government Spending Cuts That Results in A Balanced Budget By 2020 or 2024 — Spending Addiction Disorder (SAD) or Government Spending Obesity — Alive and Well — Videos

How to Solve America’s Spending Problem

The War on Work

Myths, Lies and Capitalism

What is Crony Capitalism?

If You Hate Poverty, You Should Love Capitalism

15 Things Poor People Do That The Rich Don’t

The Untold Truth Of ALDI

Coolidge: The Best President You Don’t Know

Government Spending Out of Control! Mass Addiction to Government!

Milton Friedman – Is tax reform possible?

Milton Friedman – Why Tax Reform Is Impossible

The Myth of a Fair Tax | Joseph T. Salerno

Story 3: A Broad Based Consumption Tax Replacing The Current U.S. Income Tax System Along The Lines of The FairTax or Fair Tax Less With Generous Monthly Tax Prebates and Limiting Federal Government Expenditures to 90% of Taxes Collected Will Make America Great Again — Videos

Image result for fairtax

Image result for fairtax

Image result for fairtax

Image result for fairtax

Bill Gates: Don’t tax my income, tax my consumption

Pence on the Fair Tax

Freedom from the IRS! – FairTax Explained in Detail

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-995

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 994, Story 1: President Trump Nominates Fed Governor Jerome Powell To Chair Federal Reserve Board of Governors — Expect Continuation of Interventionist Easy Monetary Policy — More Money Creation or Quantitative Easing When Economy Enters Next Recession in 2018-2019 — Videos — Part 1 of 2 — Story 2: No Tax Reform By Changing From Income Tax System to Broad Based Consumption Tax — The FairTax or Fair Tax Less — No Middle Class Tax Relief From Payroll Taxes — No Real Cuts in Federal Spending As Budget Deficits Rise with Rising National Debt and Unfunded Liabilities — Spending Addiction Disorder — Government Obesity — Crash Diet of Balanced Budgets Required — Videos

Posted on November 2, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Barack H. Obama, Blogroll, Breaking News, British Pound, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, College, Congress, Constitutional Law, Countries, Culture, Currencies, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Euro, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Middle East, Monetary Policy, National Interest, Natural Gas, News, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Resources, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Science, Social Security, Success, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Transportation, U.S. Dollar, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Image result for President trump nominates Powell for fed chairImage result for u.S. dollar purchasing power 1913 - 2016

Image result for top us marginal tax rate 1913-2016

Image result for top us marginal tax rate 1913-2016

Story 1: President Trump Nominates Fed Governor Jerome Powell To Chair Federal Reserve Board of Governors — Expect Continuation of Interventionist Easy Monetary Policy — More Money Creation or Quantitative Easing When Economy Enters Next Recession in 2018-2019 — Videos

Trump makes his pitch for new Fed chair, tax reform

Trump Announces Fed Chair Pick: Jerome Powell – Full Event

Trump nominates Powell as new Fed chair

PETER SCHIFF – THE NEXT FINANCIAL CRISIS, US ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

End The Fed? … Libertarian Republicans? … #AskRonPaul

Ron Paul’s Texas Straight Talk 10/23/17: Trump’s Fed Picks? More of the Same!

Bill Gross on Fed Chair Candidates, Bonds, U.S. Deficit

Bill Gross on the Future of Asset Management and the Fed

Who is Jerome Powell?

Trump leaning toward Jerome Powell for Fed Chair: sources

The Economic Club of New York Event – Jerome Powell

Published on Jun 28, 2017
Thursday June 1, 2017 Jerome Powell Governor, Federal Reserve System

Powell Is a Force at the Federal Reserve, Says Wallace

KEYNOTE ADDRESS – Jerome H. Powell

Trump Said to Be Leaning Toward Powell for Fed Chair

Powell, Taylor Said to Be Leading Fed Chair Choices

Trump: Fed’s a very important position

Published on Oct 23, 2017
President Donald Trump on tech regulations, the Federal Reserve, NAFTA, the outlook for U.S. economic growth and defense spending.

Alan Greenspan Is ‘Nervous’ Bond Prices Are Too High

Published on Aug 1, 2016
July 28 — Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman and founder of Greenspan Associates, discusses nervousness over bond prices and moving into currencies to counter negative interest rates, as well as dealing with uncertainties in the global economy. He speaks with Bloomberg’s Alix Steel on “Bloomberg ‹GO›.”

Greenspan: You Can’t Fix U.S. Economy Until You Fix Entitlements

Published on Dec 14, 2016
Dec.13 — Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan discusses his outlook for productivity and U.S. economic growth. He speaks with Bloomberg’s David Westin.

Who will be next Fed chair?

BVTV: The race to be next Fed chair

The Men Who Will Soon Run The Federal Reserve – What You Need To Know

A Powell, Taylor Fed Hawkish to Markets, Says Zentner

What John Taylor Would Bring to the Federal Reserve

Published on Oct 17, 2017
Oct.17 — David Riley, head of credit strategy at Bluebay Asset Management, and Ed Perks, chief investment officer at Franklin Templeton Multi-Asset Solutions, examine what John Taylor would offer as Federal Reserve Chairman. They speak on “Bloomberg Daybreak: Americas.”

Interview with Professor John Taylor

The Fed Should Raise Rates to Help the Economy – John Taylor

Published on Nov 13, 2015

 The Federal Reserve should return to conventional monetary policy as soon as possible as higher interest rates would be beneficial to the U.S. economy, said noted economist John Taylor of Stanford University. Taylor spoke with TheStreet during a conference called ‘Rethinking Monetary Policy,’ which was held at the Cato Institute in Washington D.C. Thursday. ‘To me the rethinking in some sense is going back and seeing why things worked well when they did in the ‘80s and ’90s until this period,’ said Taylor. ‘Rethinking means adapting some of the things that we forgot.’ Taylor argues that unconventional Fed policy, which was enacted in response to the financial crisis, has in some ways been detrimental. ‘The world has suffered in a way from being off track, from these very unusual policies. And so fixing that, getting back to where I think the Fed wants to go, would be an improvement,’ explained Taylor. ‘Just globally speaking, it’s not been a very successful decade,’ he added. Taylor argues for a rules-based policy system for Central Banks, saying it would lead to less volatility in policy making. TheStreet’s Rhonda Schaffler reports.

John B. Taylor’s Keynote Address: Monetary Rules for a Post-Crisis World

Monetary Policy Based on the Taylor Rule

Debate on the “Neutral” Interest Rate: Opening Presentations

Debate on the “Neutral” Interest Rate: John Taylor’s Take

Debate on the “Neutral” Interest Rate: Audience Q&A

A Powell, Taylor Fed Hawkish to Markets, Says Zentner

5 Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity: John B. Taylor

n his new book, First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity, Stanford University professor of economics John B. Taylor, details the not-so-secret ingredients to rebuilding American’s economic future: predictable policy, rule of law, strong incentives, reliance on markets, and a clearly limited role for government. “America can be great again, economically speaking,” Taylor explains, “it’s just more recently where we’ve gone off track.” Taylor sat down with Reason Magazine Managing Editor Katherine Mangu-Ward to discuss his book, the principles that underlie America’s economic supremacy and what’s gone wrong over the past decade. Taylor is the Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University and the George Shultz Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. He was Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs from 2001 to 2005. His previous books include Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis.

John B. Taylor “How Government Interventions Caused the Financial Crisis.”

Author John B. Taylor discusses his book “Getting Off Track — How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis,” with Reason.tv’s Michael C. Moynihan.

Is the Fed Making the Crisis Worse? – John B. Taylor

Uncommon Knowledge with John B. Taylor

Economist Lee Says Taylor Can Be One of Best Fed Chairs

The Fed Should Raise Rates to Help the Economy – John Taylor

How to Think About the Federal Reserve – Peter Schiff

Exposing the Federal Reserve!

The Story of Your Enslavement

A War on Homelessness

The Owners of the Country

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS – George Carlin

America is one big lie and you are a fool for believing in it.

Trump to Tap Jerome Powell as Next Fed Chairman

The president is expected to announce his decision Thursday

Federal Reserve governor Jerome Powell spoke in Washington on Oct. 3. He has been on the board of governors since 2012.
Federal Reserve governor Jerome Powell spoke in Washington on Oct. 3. He has been on the board of governors since 2012. PHOTO:JOSHUA ROBERTS/REUTERS

If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Powell would succeed Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen, the central bank’s first female leader, whose four-year term as Fed chief expires in early February.

In his five years at the Fed, Mr. Powell has been a reliable ally of Ms. Yellen and would likely continue the Fed’s current cautious approach to reversing the central bank’s crisis-era stimulus policies as the economy expands.

That would mean gradually raising short-term interest rates in quarter-percentage-point steps through 2020 while slowly shrinking the Fed’s $4.2 trillion portfolio of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities it purchased to lower long-term rates.

Mr. Powell’s nomination would mark the first time in nearly four decades that a new president hasn’t asked the serving Fed leader to stay on for another term, even though that person was nominated by a president of a different party. The last time a first-term president didn’t do that was in 1978, when President Jimmy Carter chose G. William Miller to succeed Arthur Burns.

The president spoke with Mr. Powell on Tuesday, according to people familiar with the matter who couldn’t describe what they discussed.

Mr. Trump had settled on Mr. Powell by Saturday, but people familiar with the process had cautioned that he could change his mind. The president plans to formally announce the decision Thursday before he leaves for a trip to Asia on Friday.

Reached by phone Wednesday, both Mr. Powell and Ms. Yellen declined to comment. A Fed spokeswoman also declined to comment.

Ms. Yellen was one of five finalists for the position, along with Stanford University economics professor John Taylor, former Fed governor Kevin Warsh and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn.

Mr. Taylor and Mr. Warsh didn’t respond to requests seeking comment Wednesday. Mr. Cohn’s spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Trump said in a video last week that he had “somebody very specific in mind” for the job. “It will be a person who hopefully will do a fantastic job,” Mr. Trump said in a video posted to Instagram, adding, “I think everybody will be very impressed.”

Fed officials began raising their benchmark federal-funds rate in December 2015 after holding it near zero for seven years following the financial crisis. They voted in June to lift rates to a range between 1% and 1.25% and in October started the process of slowly shrinking the Fed’s bond portfolio.

FED SPEECH ANALYZER

“The economy is as close to our assigned goals as it has been for many years,” Mr. Powell said in June. If it continues growing as expected, “I would view it as appropriate to continue to gradually raise rates.”

Officials have penciled in one more rate increase this year. But they indicated in September such increases are likely to end at a lower point than they had previously projected—at a longer-run level of around 2.75%—considerably lower than where officials have stopped raising rates in the past.

Mr. Trump told The Wall Street Journal in July, “I’d like to see rates stay low.”

The Fed on Wednesday left short-term interest rates unchanged, but signaled it would consider lifting them before year’s end amid signs the economy is gaining momentum.

Mr. Powell has never dissented on a Fed monetary or regulatory policy vote and in speeches hasn’t deviated far from the board’s consensus.

Where he could lead a shift is on regulatory policy. He has advocated loosening some of the financial rules adopted by the Fed and other agencies since the crisis, a position that meshes with Mr. Trump’s deregulatory agenda. Mr. Powell has suggested softening the Volcker rule barring banks from using their own money to make risky bets and easing some bank stress tests.

He also has endorsed reviewing some of the supervisory duties imposed on banks’ boards of directors to prevent them from being burdened with “an ever-increasing checklist.”

“More regulation is not the best answer to every problem,” Mr. Powell said in a speech in early October.

How Fed Chairs Have Fared

A look at various Fed regimes, and how they used interest rates to manage inflation, growth and the economy

*Seasonally adjusted †Change from a year earlier in the price index for personal-consumption expenditures

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

“To some extent he offers Trump the best of both worlds. You get broadly speaking continuity of Yellen’s careful and relatively dovish approach to monetary policy but with somebody who is a card-carrying Republican and who is significantly more inclined to revisit some of the postcrisis regulations,” said Krishna Guha, vice chairman at Evercore ISI and a former New York Fed official.

Karen Petrou, managing partner of the financial-services consulting firm Federal Financial Analytics, said Mr. Powell’s recent remarks on regulation “were certainly much more flexible than [Ms. Yellen] has been.”

Mr. Powell, a lawyer, would be the first Fed leader in three decades without a Ph.D. in economics. Before joining the Fed board, Mr. Powell worked as an investment banker in New York City, as Treasury undersecretary for financial institutions in the George H.W. Bush administration, as a partner at the Carlyle Group and as a scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

That background could serve him well, said Aaron Klein, an economic studies fellow at the Brookings Institution and director of the Center on Regulation and Markets.

“The Federal Reserve’s mandate has grown significantly since the financial crisis,” he said. “With a broader mandate, one should expect broader and more diverse backgrounds of potential good fits for a chair.”

“He would represent continuity of the Fed system and culture but a break from the predominance of monetary policy as the core background of the chair,” Mr. Klein said.

The decision marks the culmination of an unusually public and drawn-out search for one of the top economic policy-making jobs in the world.

Mr. Trump upended the usually staid selection process by openly weighing the pros and cons of various candidates and asking lawmakers, businesspeople and media personalities for their input.

Mr. Trump polled GOP senators last month on their preferred choice at a lunch on Capitol Hill, and said he was still considering “two, and maybe three” people for the job.

Mr. Trump has other opportunities to reshape the central bank. Randal Quarles, his first nominee to the Fed’s powerful seven-member board of governors, took office in October. Three other seats remain open.

Nominations for all board positions, including chairman and vice chairman, are subject to Senate confirmation.

Mr. Powell should have little trouble winning Senate approval, but his views could clash with those of some Republican senators who have criticized him for supporting the Fed’s easy-money and postcrisis regulatory policies.

He won confirmation to the Fed with bipartisan support in the Senate twice before: to fill an unfinished governor’s term in 2012 and for a full term in 2014. Some Republicans have suggested he could face difficult questions from his own side of the aisle. “I think we should move in a different direction,” from current Fed policies, Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) said last month about the possibility of a Powell nomination.

Write to Kate Davidson at kate.davidson@wsj.com, Peter Nicholas at

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-tap-feds-jerome-powell-for-fed-chairman-1509568166

Taylor rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In economics, a Taylor rule is a reduced form approximation of the responsiveness of the nominal interest rate, as set by the central bank, to changes in inflationoutput, or other economic conditions. In particular, the rule describes how, for each one-percent increase in inflation, the central bank tends to raise the nominal interest rate by more than one percentage point. This aspect of the rule is often called the Taylor principle. Although such rules may serve as concise, descriptive proxies for central bank policy, and are not explicitly proscriptively considered by central banks when setting nominal rates.

The rule was first proposed by John B. Taylor,[1] and simultaneously by Dale W. Henderson and Warwick McKibbin in 1993.[2] It is intended to foster price stability by systematically reducing uncertainty and increasing the credibility of future actions by the central bank. It may also avoid the inefficiencies of time inconsistency from the exercise of discretionary policy.[3] The Taylor rule synthesized, and provided a compromise between, competing schools of economics thought in a language devoid of rhetorical passion.[4] Although many issues remain unresolved and views still differ about how the Taylor rule can best be applied in practice, research shows that the rule has advanced the practice of central banking.[5]

As an equation

According to Taylor’s original version of the rule, the nominal interest rate should respond to divergences of actual inflation rates from target inflation rates and of actual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from potential GDP:

{\displaystyle i_{t}=\pi _{t}+r_{t}^{*}+a_{\pi }(\pi _{t}-\pi _{t}^{*})+a_{y}(y_{t}-{\bar {y}}_{t}).}i_{t}=\pi _{t}+r_{t}^{*}+a_{\pi }(\pi _{t}-\pi _{t}^{*})+a_{y}(y_{t}-{\bar y}_{t}).

In this equation, {\displaystyle \,i_{t}\,}\,i_{t}\, is the target short-term nominal interest rate (e.g. the federal funds rate in the US, the Bank of England base rate in the UK), {\displaystyle \,\pi _{t}\,}\,\pi _{t}\, is the rate of inflation as measured by the GDP deflator{\displaystyle \pi _{t}^{*}}\pi _{t}^{*} is the desired rate of inflation, {\displaystyle r_{t}^{*}}r_{t}^{*} is the assumed equilibrium real interest rate, {\displaystyle \,y_{t}\,}\,y_{t}\, is the logarithm of real GDP, and {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}_{t}}{\bar y}_{t} is the logarithm of potential output, as determined by a linear trend.

In this equation, both {\displaystyle a_{\pi }}a_{{\pi }} and {\displaystyle a_{y}}a_{y} should be positive (as a rough rule of thumb, Taylor’s 1993 paper proposed setting {\displaystyle a_{\pi }=a_{y}=0.5}a_{{\pi }}=a_{y}=0.5).[6] That is, the rule “recommends” a relatively high interest rate (a “tight” monetary policy) when inflation is above its target or when output is above its full-employment level, in order to reduce inflationary pressure. It recommends a relatively low interest rate (“easy” monetary policy) in the opposite situation, to stimulate output. Sometimes monetary policy goals may conflict, as in the case of stagflation, when inflation is above its target while output is below full employment. In such a situation, a Taylor rule specifies the relative weights given to reducing inflation versus increasing output.

The Taylor principle

By specifying {\displaystyle a_{\pi }>0}a_{{\pi }}>0, the Taylor rule says that an increase in inflation by one percentage point should prompt the central bank to raise the nominal interest rate by more than one percentage point (specifically, by {\displaystyle 1+a_{\pi }}1+a_{{\pi }}, the sum of the two coefficients on {\displaystyle \pi _{t}}\pi _{t} in the equation above). Since the real interest rate is (approximately) the nominal interest rate minus inflation, stipulating {\displaystyle a_{\pi }>0}a_{{\pi }}>0 implies that when inflation rises, the real interest rate should be increased. The idea that the real interest rate should be raised to cool the economy when inflation increases (requiring the nominal interest rate to increase more than inflation does) has sometimes been called the Taylor principle.[7]

Alternative versions of the rule

Effective federal funds rate and prescriptions from alternate versions of the Taylor Rule

While the Taylor principle has proved very influential, there is more debate about the other terms that should enter into the rule. According to some simple New Keynesian macroeconomic models, insofar as the central bank keeps inflation stable, the degree of fluctuation in output will be optimized (Blanchard and Gali call this property the ‘divine coincidence‘). In this case, the central bank does not need to take fluctuations in the output gap into account when setting interest rates (that is, it may optimally set {\displaystyle a_{y}=0}a_{y}=0.) On the other hand, other economists have proposed including additional terms in the Taylor rule to take into account financial conditions: for example, the interest rate might be raised when stock prices, housing prices, or interest rate spreads increase.

• Taylor Rule 1993 – the original definition by John Taylor with {\displaystyle a_{\pi }=a_{y}=0.5}{\displaystyle a_{\pi }=a_{y}=0.5}

• Taylor Rule 1999 – adapted and updated by John Taylor in a new research paper: {\displaystyle a_{\pi }=0.5,a_{y}\geq 0}{\displaystyle a_{\pi }=0.5,a_{y}\geq 0}

Empirical relevance

Although the Federal Reserve does not explicitly follow the Taylor rule, many analysts have argued that the rule provides a fairly accurate summary of US monetary policy under Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan.[8][9] Similar observations have been made about central banks in other developed economies, both in countries like Canada and New Zealand that have officially adopted inflation targeting rules, and in others like Germany where the Bundesbank‘s policy did not officially target the inflation rate.[10][11] This observation has been cited by ClaridaGalí, and Gertler as a reason why inflation had remained under control and the economy had been relatively stable (the so-called ‘Great Moderation‘) in most developed countries from the 1980s through the 2000s.[8] However, according to Taylor, the rule was not followed in part of the 2000s, possibly leading to the housing bubble.[12][13] Certain research has determined that some households form their expectations about the future path of interest rates, inflation, and unemployment in a way that is consistent with Taylor-type rules.[14]

Criticisms

Athanasios Orphanides (2003) claims that the Taylor rule can misguide policy makers since they face real-time data. He shows that the Taylor rule matches the US funds rate less perfectly when accounting for these informational limitations and that an activist policy following the Taylor rule would have resulted in an inferior macroeconomic performance during the Great Inflation of the seventies.[15]

In 2015, financial manager Bill Gross said the Taylor rule “must now be discarded into the trash bin of history”, in light of tepid GDP growth in the years after 2009.[16] Gross believed low interest rates were not the cure for decreased growth, but the source of the problem.

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1993). “Discretion versus Policy Rules in Practice” (PDF). Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy39: 195–214. (The rule is introduced on page 202.)
  2. Jump up^ Henderson, D. W.; McKibbin, W. (1993). “A Comparison of Some Basic Monetary Policy Regimes for Open Economies: Implications of Different Degrees of Instrument Adjustment and Wage Persistence”. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy39: 221–318. doi:10.1016/0167-2231(93)90011-K.
  3. Jump up^ Taylor, John (2012). First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Economic Prosperity. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. p. 126
  4. Jump up^ Kahn, George A.; Asso, Pier Francesco; Leeson, Robert (2007). “The Taylor Rule and the Transformation of Monetary Policy”. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Working Paper 07-11SSRN 1088466Freely accessible.
  5. Jump up^ Asso, Pier Francesco; Kahn, George A.; Leeson, Robert (2010). “The Taylor Rule and the Practice of Central Banking”. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Working Paper 10-05SSRN 1553978Freely accessible.
  6. Jump up^ Athanasios Orphanides (2008). “Taylor rules,” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. v. 8, pp. 2000-2004, equation (7).Abstract.
  7. Jump up^ Davig, Troy; Leeper, Eric M. (2007). “Generalizing the Taylor Principle”. American Economic Review97 (3): 607–635. JSTOR 30035014doi:10.1257/aer.97.3.607.
  8. Jump up to:a b Clarida, Richard; Galí, Jordi; Gertler, Mark (2000). “Monetary Policy Rules and Macroeconomic Stability: Theory and Some Evidence”. Quarterly Journal of Economics115 (1): 147–180. JSTOR 2586937doi:10.1162/003355300554692.
  9. Jump up^ Lowenstein, Roger (2008-01-20). “The Education of Ben Bernanke”The New York Times.
  10. Jump up^ Bernanke, Ben; Mihov, Ilian (1997). “What Does the Bundesbank Target?”. European Economic Review41 (6): 1025–1053. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(96)00056-6.
  11. Jump up^ Clarida, Richard; Gertler, Mark; Galí, Jordi (1998). “Monetary Policy Rules in Practice: Some International Evidence”. European Economic Review42 (6): 1033–1067. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(98)00016-6.
  12. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2008). “The Financial Crisis and the Policy Responses: An Empirical Analysis of What Went Wrong” (PDF).
  13. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2009). Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis. Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0-8179-4971-2.
  14. Jump up^ Carvalho, Carlos; Nechio, Fernanda (2013). “Do People Understand Monetary Policy?”. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper 2012-01SSRN 1984321Freely accessible.
  15. Jump up^ Orphanides, A. (2003). “The Quest for Prosperity without Inflation”. Journal of Monetary Economics50 (3): 633–663. doi:10.1016/S0304-3932(03)00028-X.
  16. Jump up^ Bill Gross (July 30, 2015). “Gross: Low rates are the problem, not the solution”CNBC. Retrieved July 30, 2015.

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_rule

Real interest rate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yields on inflation-indexed government bonds of selected countries and maturities.

The real interest rate is the rate of interest an investor, saver or lender receives (or expects to receive) after allowing for inflation. It can be described more formally by the Fisher equation, which states that the real interest rate is approximately the nominal interest rate minus the inflation rate.

If, for example, an investor were able to lock in a 5% interest rate for the coming year and anticipated a 2% rise in prices, they would expect to earn a real interest rate of 3%.[1] The expected real interest rate is not a single number, as different investors have different expectations of future inflation. Since the inflation rate over the course of a loan is not known initially, volatility in inflation represents a risk to both the lender and the borrower.

In the case of contracts stated in terms of the nominal interest rate, the real interest rate is known only at the end of the period of the loan, based on the realized inflation rate; this is called the ex-post real interest rate. Since the introduction of inflation-indexed bondsex-ante real interest rates have become observable.[2]

Risks

In economics and finance, an individual who lends money for repayment at a later point in time expects to be compensated for the time value of money, or not having the use of that money while it is lent. In addition, they will want to be compensated for the risks of having less purchasing power when the loan is repaid. These risks are systematic risks, regulatory risks and inflation risks. The first includes the possibility that the borrower will default or be unable to pay on the originally agreed upon terms, or that collateral backing the loan will prove to be less valuable than estimated. The second includes taxation and changes in the law which would prevent the lender from collecting on a loan or having to pay more in taxes on the amount repaid than originally estimated. The third takes into account that the money repaid may not have as much buying power from the perspective of the lender as the money originally lent, that is inflation, and may include fluctuations in the value of the currencies involved.

Nominal interest rates include all three risk factors, plus the time value of the money itself.
Real interest rates include only the systematic and regulatory risks and are meant to measure the time value of money.

The “real interest rate” in an economy is often considered to be the rate of return on a risk free investment, such as US Treasury notes, minus an index of inflation, such as the rate of change of the CPI or GDP deflator.

Fisher equation

The relation between real and nominal interest rates and the expected inflation rate is given by the Fisher equation

{\displaystyle 1+i=(1+r)(1+\pi _{e})}1+i=(1+r)(1+\pi _{e})

where

i = nominal interest rate;
r = real interest rate;
{\displaystyle \pi _{e}}\pi _{e} = expected inflation rate.

For example, if somebody lends $1000 for a year at 10%, and receives $1100 back at the end of the year, this represents a 10% increase in her purchasing power if prices for the average goods and services that she buys are unchanged from what they were at the beginning of the year. However, if the prices of the food, clothing, housing, and other things that she wishes to purchase have increased 25% over this period, she has in fact suffered a real loss of about 15% in her purchasing power. (Notice that the approximation here is a bit rough; since 1.1/1.25 = 0.88 = 1 – 0.12, the actual loss of purchasing power is exactly 12%.

Variations in inflation

The inflation rate will not be known in advance. People often base their expectation of future inflation on an average of inflation rates in the past, but this gives rise to errors. The real interest rate ex-post may turn out to be quite different from the real interest rate (ex-ante real interest rate) that was expected in advance. Borrowers hope to repay in cheaper money in the future, while lenders hope to collect on more expensive money. When inflation and currency risks are underestimated by lenders, then they will suffer a net reduction in buying power.

The complexity increases for bonds issued for a long term, where the average inflation rate over the term of the loan may be subject to a great deal of uncertainty. In response to this, many governments have issued real return bonds, also known as inflation-indexed bonds, in which the principal value and coupon rises each year with the rate of inflation, with the result that the interest rate on the bond approximates a real interest rate. (E.g., the three-month indexation lag of TIPS can result in a divergence of as much as 0.042% from the real interest rate, according to research by Grishchenko and Huang.[3]) In the US, Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are issued by the US Treasury.

The expected real interest rate can vary considerably from year to year. The real interest rate on short term loans is strongly influenced by the monetary policy of central banks. The real interest rate on longer term bonds tends to be more market driven, and in recent decades, with globalized financial markets, the real interest rates in the industrialized countries have become increasingly correlated. Real interest rates have been low by historical standards since 2000, due to a combination of factors, including relatively weak demand for loans by corporations, plus strong savings in newly industrializing countries in Asia. The latter has offset the large borrowing demands by the US Federal Government, which might otherwise have put more upward pressure on real interest rates.

Related is the concept of “risk return”, which is the rate of return minus the risks as measured against the safest (least-risky) investment available. Thus if a loan is made at 15% with an inflation rate of 5% and 10% in risks associated with default or problems repaying, then the “risk adjusted” rate of return on the investment is 0%.

Importance in economic theory

Effective federal funds rate and prescriptions from alternate versions of the Taylor Rule

The amount of physical investment—in particular the purchasing of new machines and other productive capacity—that firms engage in depends on the level of real interest rates, because such purchases typically must be financed by issuing new bonds. If real interest rates are high, the cost of borrowing may exceed the real physical return of some potentially purchased machines (in the form of output produced); in that case those machines will not be purchased. Lower real interest rates would make it profitable to borrow to finance the purchasing of a greater number of machines.

The real interest rate is used in various economic theories to explain such phenomena as the capital flightbusiness cycle and economic bubbles. When the real rate of interest is high, that is, demand for credit is high, then money will, all other things being equal, move from consumption to savings. Conversely, when the real rate of interest is low, demand will move from savings to investment and consumption. Different economic theories, beginning with the work of Knut Wicksell have had different explanations of the effect of rising and falling real interest rates. Thus, international capital moves to markets that offer higher real rates of interest from markets that offer low or negative real rates of interest triggering speculation in equities, estates and exchange rates.

Real federal funds rate

In setting monetary policy, the U.S. Federal Reserve (and other central banks) establish an interest rate at which they lend to banks. This is the federal funds rate. By setting this rate low, they can encourage borrowing and thus economic activity; or the reverse by raising the rate. Like any interest rate, there are a nominal and a real value defined as described above. Further, there is a concept called the “equilibrium real federal funds rate” (r*), alternatively called the “natural rate of interest” or the “neutral real rate”, which is the “level of the real federal funds rate, if allowed to prevail for several years, [that] would place economic activity at its potential and keep inflation low and stable.” There are various methods used to estimate this amount, using tools such as the Taylor Rule. It is possible for this rate to be negative.[4]

Negative real interest rates

The real interest rate solved from the Fisher equation is

{\displaystyle {\frac {1+i}{1+\pi }}-1=r}{\frac {1+i}{1+\pi }}-1=r

If there is a negative real interest rate, it means that the inflation rate is greater than the nominal interest rate. If the Federal funds rate is 2% and the inflation rate is 10%, then the borrower would gain 7.27% of every dollar borrowed per year.

{\displaystyle {\frac {1+0.02}{1+0.1}}-1=-0.0727}{\frac {1+0.02}{1+0.1}}-1=-0.0727

Negative real interest rates are an important factor in government fiscal policy. Since 2010, the U.S. Treasury has been obtaining negative real interest rates on government debt, meaning the inflation rate is greater than the interest rate paid on the debt.[5] Such low rates, outpaced by the inflation rate, occur when the market believes that there are no alternatives with sufficiently low risk, or when popular institutional investments such as insurance companies, pensions, or bond, money market, and balanced mutual funds are required or choose to invest sufficiently large sums in Treasury securities to hedge against risk.[6][7]Lawrence Summers stated that at such low rates, government debt borrowing saves taxpayer money, and improves creditworthiness.[8][9] In the late 1940s through the early 1970s, the US and UK both reduced their debt burden by about 30% to 40% of GDP per decade by taking advantage of negative real interest rates, but there is no guarantee that government debt rates will continue to stay so low.[6][10] Between 1946 and 1974, the US debt-to-GDP ratio fell from 121% to 32% even though there were surpluses in only eight of those years which were much smaller than the deficits.[11]

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_Qxj5U7eaJTZTJkODYzN2ItZjE3Yy00Y2M0LTk2ZmUtZGU0NzA3NGI4Y2Y5&hl=en&pli=1 page 24
  2. Jump up^ “FRB: Speech with Slideshow–Bernanke, Long-Term Interest Rates–March 1, 2013”http://www.federalreserve.gov. Retrieved 2017-03-07.
  3. Jump up^ Grishchenko, Olesya V.; Jing-zhi Huang (June 2012). “Inflation Risk Premium: Evidence from the TIPS Market” (PDF). Finance and Economics Discussion Series. Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  4. Jump up^ U.S. Federal Reserve-Remarks by Vice Chairman Roger W. Ferguson Jr. October 29, 2004
  5. Jump up^ Saint Louis Federal Reserve (2012) “5-Year Treasury Inflation-Indexed Security, Constant Maturity” FRED Economic Data chart from government debt auctions (the x-axis at y=0 represents the inflation rate over the life of the security)
  6. Jump up to:a b Carmen M. Reinhart and M. Belen Sbrancia (March 2011) “The Liquidation of Government Debt” National Bureau of Economic Research working paper No. 16893
  7. Jump up^ David Wessel (August 8, 2012) “When Interest Rates Turn Upside Down” Wall Street Journal (full text)
  8. Jump up^ Lawrence Summers (June 3, 2012) “Breaking the negative feedback loop” Reuters
  9. Jump up^ Matthew Yglesias (May 30, 2012) “Why Are We Collecting Taxes?” Slate
  10. Jump up^ William H. Gross (May 2, 2011) “The Caine Mutiny (Part 2)”PIMCO Investment Outlook
  11. Jump up^ “Why the U.S. Government Never, Ever Has to Pay Back All Its Debt” The Atlantic, February 1, 2013

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_interest_rate

John B. Taylor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Taylor
JohnBTaylor.jpg
Personal details
Born John Brian Taylor
December 8, 1946 (age 70)
Yonkers, New YorkU.S.
Political party Republican
Education Princeton University(BA)
Stanford University(PhD)
Academic career
Field Monetary economics
School or
tradition
New Keynesian economics
Doctoral
advisor
Theodore Wilbur Anderson[1]
Doctoral
students
Lawrence J. Christiano
Influences Milton Friedman
Paul Volcker
E. Philip Howrey
Alan Greenspan
Contributions Taylor rule
Information at IDEAS / RePEc

John Brian Taylor (born December 8, 1946) is the Mary and Robert Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University, and the George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.[2]

Born in Yonkers, New York, he graduated from Shady Side Academy[3] and earned his A.B. from Princeton University in 1968 and Ph.D. from Stanford in 1973, both in economics. He taught at Columbia University from 1973–1980 and the Woodrow Wilson School and Economics Department of Princeton University from 1980–1984 before returning to Stanford. He has received several teaching prizes and teaches Stanford’s introductory economics course as well as Ph.D. courses in monetary economics.[4]

In research published in 1979 and 1980 he developed a model of price and wage setting—called the staggered contract model—which served as an underpinning of a new class of empirical models with rational expectations and sticky prices—sometimes called new Keynesian models.[5][6] In a 1993 paper he proposed the Taylor rule,[7] intended as a recommendation about how nominal interest rates should be determined, which then became a rough summary of how central banks actually do set them. He has been active in public policy, serving as the Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs during the first term of the George W. Bush Administration. His book Global Financial Warriors chronicles this period.[8] He was a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors during the George H. W. Bush Administration and Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisors during the Ford and Carter Administrations.

In 2012 he was included in the 50 Most Influential list of Bloomberg Markets Magazine. Thomson Reuters lists Taylor among the ‘citation laureates‘ who are likely future winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics.[9]

Academic contributions

Taylor’s research—including the staggered contract model, the Taylor rule, and the construction of a policy tradeoff (Taylor) curve[10] employing empirical rational expectations models[11]—has had a major impact on economic theory and policy.[12] Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that Taylor’s “influence on monetary theory and policy has been profound,”[13] and Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has noted that Taylor’s work “has affected the way policymakers and economists analyze the economy and approach monetary policy.”[14]

Taylor contributed to the development of mathematical methods for solving macroeconomic models under the assumption of rational expectations, including in a 1975 Journal of Political Economy paper, in which he showed how gradual learning could be incorporated in models with rational expectations;[15] a 1979 Econometrica paper in which he presented one of the first econometric models with overlapping price setting and rational expectations,[16] which he later expanded into a large multicountry model in a 1993 book Macroeconomic Policy in a World Economy,[11] and a 1983 Econometrica paper,[17] in which he developed with Ray Fair the first algorithm to solve large-scale dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models which became part of popular solution programs such as Dynare and EViews.[18]

In 1977, Taylor and Edmund Phelps, simultaneously with Stanley Fischer, showed that monetary policy is useful for stabilizing the economy if prices or wages are sticky, even when all workers and firms have rational expectations.[19] This demonstrated that some of the earlier insights of Keynesian economics remained true under rational expectations. This was important because Thomas Sargent and Neil Wallace had argued that rational expectations would make macroeconomic policy useless for stabilization;[20] the results of Taylor, Phelps, and Fischer showed that Sargent and Wallace’s crucial assumption was not rational expectations, but perfectly flexible prices.[21] These research projects together could considerably deepen our understanding of the limits of the policy-ineffectiveness proposition.[22]

Taylor then developed the staggered contract model of overlapping wage and price setting, which became one of the building blocks of the New Keynesian macroeconomics that rebuilt much of the traditional macromodel on rational expectations microfoundations.[23][24]

Taylor’s research on monetary policy rules traces back to his undergraduate studies at Princeton.[25][26] He went on in the 1970s and 1980s to explore what types of monetary policy rules would most effectively reduce the social costs of inflation and business cycle fluctuations: should central banks try to control the money supply, the price level, or the interest rate; and should these instruments react to changes in output, unemployment, asset prices, or inflation rates? He showed[27] that there was a tradeoff—later called the Taylor curve[28]—between the volatility of inflation and that of output. Taylor’s 1993 paper in the Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy proposed that a simple and effective central bank policy would manipulate short-term interest rates, raising rates to cool the economy whenever inflation or output growth becomes excessive, and lowering rates when either one falls too low.[7] Taylor’s interest rate equation has come to be known as the Taylor rule, and it is now widely accepted as an effective formula for monetary decision making.[29]

A key stipulation of the Taylor rule, sometimes called the Taylor principle,[30] is that the nominal interest rate should increase by more than one percentage point for each one-percent rise in inflation. Some empirical estimates indicate that many central banks today act approximately as the Taylor rule prescribes, but violated the Taylor principle during the inflationary spiral of the 1970s.[31]

Recent research

Taylor’s recent research has been on the financial crisis that began in 2007 and the world economic recession. He finds that the crisis was primarily caused by flawed macroeconomic policies from the U.S. government and other governments. Particularly, he focuses on the Federal Reserve which, under Alan Greenspan, a personal friend of Taylor, created “monetary excesses” in which interest rates were kept too low for too long, which then directly led to the housing boom in his opinion.[32] He also believes that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae spurred on the boom and that the crisis was misdiagnosed as a liquidity rather than a credit risk problem.[33] He wrote that, “government actions and interventions, not any inherent failure or instability of the private economy, caused, prolonged, and worsen the crisis.”[34]

Taylor’s research has also examined the impact of fiscal policy in the recent recession. In November 2008, writing for The Wall Street Journal opinion section, he recommended four measures to fight the economic downturn: (a) permanently keeping all income tax ratesthe same, (b) permanently creating a worker’s tax credit equal to 6.2 percent of wages up to $8,000, (c) incorporating “automatic stabilizers” as part of overall fiscal plans, and (d) enacting a short-term stimulus plan that also meets long term objectives against waste and inefficiency. He stated that merely temporary tax cuts would not serve as a good policy tool.[35] His research[36] with John Cogan, Tobias Cwik, and Volcker Wieland showed that the multiplier is much smaller in new Keynesian than in old Keynesian models, a result that was confirmed by researchers at central banks.[37] He evaluated the 2008 and 2009 stimulus packages and argued that they were not effective in stimulating the economy.[38]

In a June 2011 interview on Bloomberg Television, Taylor stressed the importance of long term fiscal reform that sets the U.S. federal budget on a path towards being balanced. He cautioned that the Fed should move away from quantitative easing measures and keep to a more static, stable monetary policy. He also criticized fellow economist Paul Krugman‘s advocacy of additional stimulus programs from Congress, which Taylor said will not help in the long run.[39] In his 2012 book First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity, he endeavors to explain why these reforms are part of a broader set of principles of economic freedom.

Selected publications

Reprinted in Taylor, John B. (1991), “Staggered wage setting in a macro model”, in Mankiw, N. Gregory; Romer, David, New Keynesian economics, volume 1, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 233–42, ISBN 9780262631334.
  • Taylor, John B. (September 1979). “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”. EconometricaWiley47 (5): 1267–86. JSTOR 1911962doi:10.2307/1911962.
  • Taylor, John B. (December 1980). “Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade”. The American Economic ReviewAmerican Economic Association70 (5): 950–59. JSTOR 1805774.Pdf.
  • Taylor, John B. (1986), ‘New econometric approaches to stabilization policy in stochastic models of macroeconomic fluctuations’. Ch. 34 of Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 3, Z. Griliches and M.D. Intriligator, eds. Elsevier Science Publishers.
  • Taylor, John B. (December 1993). “Discretion versus policy rules in practice”Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public PolicyElsevier39: 195–214. doi:10.1016/0167-2231(93)90009-L.Pdf.
  • Taylor, John B. (1999), “An historical analysis of monetary policy rules”, in Taylor, John B., Monetary policy rules, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 9780226791265.
  • Taylor, John B. (2007). Global financial warriors: the untold story of international finance in the post-9/11 world. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393064483.
  • Taylor, John B. (2008), “Housing and monetary policy”, in Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Housing, housing finance, and monetary policy: a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 30-September 1, 2007, Kansas City, Missouri: Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pp. 463–76, OCLC 170267547
  • Taylor, John B. (2009), “The financial crisis and the policy response: an empirical analysis of what went wrong”, in Bank of Canada Staff, Festschrift in honour of David Dodge’s contributions to Canadian public policy: proceedings of a conference held by the Bank of Canada, November, 2008, Ottawa: Bank of Canada, pp. 1–18, ISBN 9780660199276.
  • Taylor, John B. (2009). Getting off track: how government actions and interventions caused, prolonged, and worsened the financial crisis. Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 9780817949716.
  • Taylor, John B.; Shultz, George P.; Scott, Kenneth, eds. (2009). Ending government bailouts as we know them. Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 9780817911287.
  • Taylor, John B.; Ryan, Paul D. (30 November 2010). “Refocus the Fed on price stability instead of bailing out fiscal policy”Investor’s Business Daily. Archived from the original on 13 April 2011.
  • Taylor, John B. (2012). First principles: five keys to restoring America’s prosperity. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393345452.

See also

Further reading

References

  1. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 24, 2016). “The Statistical Analysis of Policy Rules”economicsone.com. Economics One (A blog by John B. Taylor). Retrieved October 2, 2016.
  2. Jump up^ “Hoover Institution Senior Fellow: Biography”Hoover Institution. Retrieved 27 October 2011.
  3. Jump up^ “Notable alumni”shadysideacademy.orgShady Side Academy.
  4. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. “Curriculum vitae” (pdf). Stanford University.
  5. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (May 1979). “Staggered wage setting in a macro model”. The American Economic ReviewAmerican Economic Association69 (2): 108–113. JSTOR 1801626.
    Reprinted in Taylor, John B. (1991), “Staggered wage setting in a macro model”, in Mankiw, N. Gregory; Romer, David, New Keynesian economics, volume 1, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 233–242, ISBN 9780262631334.
  6. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (February 1980). “Aggregate dynamics and staggered contracts”Journal of Political EconomyChicago Journals88 (1): 1–23. JSTOR 1830957doi:10.1086/260845.
  7. Jump up to:a b Taylor, John B. (December 1993). “Discretion versus policy rules in practice”Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public PolicyElsevier39: 195–214. doi:10.1016/0167-2231(93)90009-L. Pdf.
  8. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2007). Global financial warriors: the untold story of international finance in the post-9/11 world. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393064483.
  9. Jump up^ “Hall of ‘citation laureates’ (in economics)”science.thomsonreuters.com. Thomson-Reuters.
  10. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 1979). “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”EconometricaWiley47 (5): 1267–86. JSTOR 1911962doi:10.2307/1911962. Pdf.
    Reprinted in Taylor, John B. (1981), “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”, in Lucas, Jr., Robert E.; Sargent, Thomas J., Rational expectations and econometric practice, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, ISBN 9780816610983.
  11. Jump up to:a b Taylor, John B. (1993). Macroeconomic policy in a world economy: from econometric design to practical operation. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393963168.
  12. Jump up^ Ben Bernanke refers to the “three concepts named after John that are central to understanding our macroeconomic experience of the past three decades—the Taylor curve, the Taylor rule, and the Taylor principle.” in “Opening Remarks,” Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy
  13. Jump up^ Bernanke, Ben (2007). Opening Remarks. Remarks at the Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy.
  14. Jump up^ Yellen, Janet (2007). Policymaker Roundtable (PDF).Remarks at the Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy.
  15. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (October 1975). “Monetary policy during a transition to rational expectations”Journal of Political EconomyChicago Journals83 (5): 1009–22. JSTOR 1830083doi:10.1086/260374.
  16. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 1979). “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”. EconometricaWiley47 (5): 1267–86. JSTOR 1911962doi:10.2307/1911962.
  17. Jump up^ Taylor, John B.; Fair, Ray C. (July 1983). “Solution and maximum likelihood estimation of dynamic nonlinear rational expectations models”EconometricaWiley51 (4): 1169–85. JSTOR 1912057doi:10.2307/1912057.
  18. Jump up^ Judd, Kenneth; Kubler, Felix; Schmedders, Karl (2003), “Computational methods for dynamic equilibria with heterogeneous agents”, in Dewatripont, Mathias; Hansen, Lars Peter; Turnovsky, Stephen J., Advances in economics and econometrics theory and applications (volume 3), Cambridge, U.K. New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 247, ISBN 9781280163388 and “Eviews Users Guide II.”
  19. Jump up^ Taylor, John B.; Phelps, Edmund S. (February 1977). “Stabilizing powers of monetary policy under rational expectations”Journal of Political EconomyChicago Journals85 (1): 163–90. JSTOR 1828334doi:10.1086/260550.
  20. Jump up^ Sargent, Thomas; Wallace, Neil (April 1975). “‘Rational’ expectations, the optimal monetary instrument, and the optimal money supply rule”Journal of Political EconomyChicago Journals83 (2): 241–54. JSTOR 1830921doi:10.1086/260321.
  21. Jump up^ Blanchard, Olivier (2000), “Epliogue”, in Blanchard, Olivier, Macroeconomics (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, p. 543, ISBN 9780130557872.
  22. Jump up^ Galbács, Peter (2015). The theory of new classical macroeconomics: a positive critique. Heidelberg / New York / Dordrecht / London: Springer. ISBN 9783319175782doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17578-2.
  23. Jump up^ King, Robert G.; Wolman, Alexander (1999), “What should the monetary authority do when prices are sticky?”, in Taylor, John B., Monetary policy rules, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 9780226791265.
  24. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1999), “Staggered price and wage setting in macroeconomics”, in Taylor, John B.; Woodford, Michael, Handbook of macroeconomics, Amsterdam New York: North-Holland Elsevier, pp. 1009–50, ISBN 9780444501585.
  25. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (April 1968). Fiscal and monetary stabilization policies in a model of endogenous cyclical growth (BA thesis). Princeton University.
  26. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (October 1968). “Fiscal and monetary stabilization policies in a model of endogenous cyclical growth”(pdf). Research Memorandum No. 104. Econometric Research Program, Princeton University. OCLC 22687344.
  27. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 1979). “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”EconometricaWiley47 (5): 1267–86. JSTOR 1911962doi:10.2307/1911962.
  28. Jump up^ Bernanke, Ben (2004). The Great Moderation. Remarks at the meeting of the Eastern Economic Association.
  29. Jump up^ Orphanides, Athanasios (2007). Taylor rules (pdf). Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2007–18. Federal Reserve Board.
  30. Jump up^ Davig, Troy; Leeper, Eric M. (June 2007). “Generalizing the Taylor Principle”. The American Economic ReviewAmerican Economic Association97 (3): 607–35. JSTOR 30035014.NBER Working Paper 11874, December 2005.
  31. Jump up^ Clarida, Richard; Galí, Jordi; Gertler, Mark (February 2000). “Monetary policy rules and macroeconomic stability: evidence and some theory”Quarterly Journal of EconomicsOxford Journals115 (1): 147–80. doi:10.1162/003355300554692. Pdf.
  32. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2008), “Housing and monetary policy”, in Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Housing, housing finance, and monetary policy: a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 30-September 1, 2007, Kansas City, Missouri: Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pp. 463–76, OCLC 170267547
  33. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2009), “The financial crisis and the policy response: an empirical analysis of what went wrong (housing and monetary policy)”, in Bank of Canada Staff, Festschrift in honour of David Dodge’s contributions to Canadian public policy: proceedings of a conference held by the Bank of Canada, November, 2008, Ottawa: Bank of Canada, pp. 1–18, ISBN 9780660199276.
  34. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (February 9, 2009). “How government created the financial crisis”The Wall Street Journal. p. A19. Pdf.
  35. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (November 25, 2008). “Why permanent tax cuts are the best stimulus”The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 30, 2011.
  36. Jump up^ Taylor, John B.; Cogan, John F.; Cwik, Tobias; Wieland, Volker (March 2010). “New Keynesian versus old Keynesian government spending multipliers”Journal of Economic Dynamics and ControlElsevier34 (3): 281–95. doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2010.01.010.
  37. Jump up^ Coenen, Guenter; et al. (September 2011). “Effects of fiscal stimulus in structural models”American Economic Journal: MicroeconomicsAmerican Economic Association4 (1): 22–68. doi:10.1257/mac.4.1.22. Pdf.
  38. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 2011). “An empirical analysis of the revival of fiscal activism in the 2000s”Journal of Economic LiteratureAmerican Economic Association49 (3): 686–702. JSTOR 23071727doi:10.1257/jel.49.3.686. Pdf.
  39. Jump up^ “Taylor Says U.S. Needs `Sound’ Monetary, Fiscal Policies”Bloomberg Television thru Washington Post. June 27, 2011. Retrieved June 30, 2011.

External links

Story 2: No Tax Reform By Changing From Income Tax System to Broad Based Consumption Tax — The FairTax or Fair Tax Less — No Middle Class Tax Relief From Payroll Taxes — No Real Cuts in Federal Spending As Budget Deficits Rise with Rising National Debt and Unfunded Liabilities — Spending Addiction Disorder — Government Obesity — Crash Diet of Balanced Budgets Required — Videos

Paul Ryan’s full interview on GOP tax plan

GOP unveils tax plan (full event)

The House GOP Announces Their Tax Cut Plan

How the tax reform rollout will play out for Republicans

BREAKING: President Trump making jobs and tax proposal announcement

The House Republican tax bill, explained

It radically cuts taxes on corporations and wealthy heirs.

House Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady (center) with House and Senate leaders Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.
 Alex Wong/Getty Images

After months, even years, of outlines and blueprints and “frameworks,” Republicans in the House of Representatives finally released their first attempt at an actual tax reform billon Thursday.

While the broad strokes of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act were telegraphed weeks, if not months, in advance, this is the first time Republicans in any branch of the federal government have described their tax plan in enough detail that it can actually be debated, scored by the Congressional Budget Office so its cost and effects on the rich and poor are known, and voted upon by the House and Senate.

The legislation seeks to dramatically cut taxes on corporations and consolidate benefits like personal exemptions, the standard deduction, and the child credit for individuals. It would eliminate the alternative minimum tax and estate tax, and pare back certain individual deductions. It would also offer a new low tax rate for owners of “pass-through” businesses like LLCs and partnerships, whose income from their businesses is taxed as personal income.

The bill in its current form would almost certainly give disproportionate benefits to wealthy Americans, who tend to benefit from corporate tax cuts more than non-wealthy Americans and who could likely exploit the pass-through rate by setting up dummy corporations. People earning between $400,000 and $1 million would face a significantly lower top income tax rate.

But the bill will almost certainly not remain in its current form. As written, it is almost guaranteed to increase the budget deficit by trillions over 10 years, and quite possibly keep increasing the deficit after 10 years are up.

That’s a big problem: Under Senate rules, some legislation can pass with only 51 votes only if it doesn’t increase the long-run deficit. So the current draft of the legislation would probably need 60 votes instead, meaning significant Democratic support, which Republican leaders haven’t been even trying to court. They need legislation that can pass with 51 votes, and for that, they need the bill to not raise the long-run deficit.

That means the bill needs to change — either the cuts need to get smaller or Republican leaders need to find new ways to raise money, or both. But the bill in its current form at least suggests what GOP leaders want to do.

The bill would good for corporations and the wealthy

Before delving into the bill’s details, it’s worth taking a moment to consider who, all told, comes out ahead and behind. Here’s who would be better off:

  • Corporations, broadly, are the focus of most of the tax cuts. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent, as the bill does, costs nearly $1.5 trillion over 10 years. They also gain new, more favorable treatment of income earned abroad, which is either not taxed or taxed at an even lower rate than 20 percent.
  • Wealthy, particularly ultrawealthy people, who tend to earn a disproportionate share of their income from capital (like stock sales and dividends) and thus benefit from cuts to the corporate tax, which is largely a tax on capital. If the corporate tax also reduces wages, as some conservative economists allege, then corporate cuts still disproportionately help the wealthy, as a huge share of wages go to high earners, not low- or median-wage workers. Additionally, the pass-through cut could enable some wealthy people who either own pass-throughs or create new ones to shelter some of their income from high rates.
  • People making mid to high sixfigure incomes, who arguably should count as wealthy or rich too. By raising the threshold for the 39.6 percent rate on individual income to $1 million for couples, up from $470,700 today, people with incomes in the $600,000 to $700,000 range will get a sizable reduction, in addition to the low-end tax cut they get because the new 12 percent bracket will apply to income now taxed at 15 or 25 percent.
  • Pass-through companies, like the Trump Organization, which get a new very low rate. There are some provisions included meant to prevent rich individuals from using this tax break as a way to shelter income, but they only limit the benefit in many cases. The overwhelmingly rich owners of these companies will still come out way ahead.
  • Heirs and heiresses, as the estate tax is first reduced (by increasing the exemption and applying it to an even smaller sliver of the hyperrich) and then eliminated entirely.

But the bill would hurt the poor and increase the deficit

The GOP’s tax reform proposal would leave other groups worse off:

  • Blue state residents would pay higher taxes, as the state and local income/sales tax deduction is eliminated and the one for property taxes is somewhat curtailed. That said, wealthy people benefiting from these deductions will likely see this tax hike offset by the other tax cuts in the package.
  • The housing sector faces a new limit on the mortgage interest deduction. For individual taxpayers, the rate cuts largely make up for this, but it reduces the incentive to buy and build homes, which could affect lenders, construction companies, real estate firms, etc.
  • Poor families were rumored to be getting a tax cut due to a change in the refundability formula for the child tax credit — but that didn’t make it into the bill. The credit only goes to families with $3,000 in earnings or more, and phases in slowly; some in Congress were pushing to lower the threshold to $0, but they didn’t succeed. Instead, a provision denying the child tax credit to American citizen children whose parents are undocumented immigrants is included.
  • And it would increase the deficit; the Joint Committee on Taxation has reportedly scored the bill as costing $1.51 trillion over 10 years, about what the House/Senate budget allocated for the bill but still a sizable increase in the public debt.

Here’s the Joint Committee on Taxation’s estimates of what each provision raises and costs in tax revenue:

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s summary of the bill’s costCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Individual income tax rates are consolidated and cut

The new tax reform bill (which, again, draws on plans Trump and congressional Republicans have released going back over a year now) would significantly change individual income tax brackets:

  • The seven current individual income tax brackets would be consolidated to four: 12 percent (up from the current bottom rate of 10 percent), 25 percent, 35 percent, and 39.6 percent.
  • Keeping the 39.6 percent top rate is a huge change from past Republican plans, which have focused heavily on cutting the maximum rate the richest households pay. However, the plan significantly reduces how many people pay the top rate: The threshold for the last bracket would increase from $470,700 for married couples today to $1 million.
  • The 35 percent rate would cover some affluent households currently paying a marginal rate of 33 percent, potentially raising their taxes; and the 12 percent bracket would extend into the income range currently covered by the 25 percent bracket, lowering taxes for many middle- and upper-middle-class households.
  • The thresholds for brackets will be adjusted according to chained CPI, a slower-growing measure of inflation than normal CPI, which is used currently; this change raises revenue over time by gradually pushing more and more people into higher tax brackets.
  • De facto taxes on some corporate executives would go up: Performance pay and commissions above $1 million would no longer be deductible for the purposes of corporate taxes.

The standard deduction is increased, personal exemptions are eliminated, and the child tax credit is mildly boosted

Standard benefits for families are changed significantly, with an eye toward simplifying the vast array of benefits (standard deductions, personal exemptions, child credits, etc.) currently available:

  • The standard deduction will be raised to $24,000 for couples and $12,000 for individuals, a near doubling from current levels.
  • The child tax credit, currently $1,000, will grow to $1,600, and a new $300 credit for parents and other non-child dependents in the house (the $300 credit expires after five years, presumably to save money).
  • Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) have spent months working with Ivanka Trump, and persuaded her to abandon her plan to add a tax deduction for child care in favor of an increased child tax credit. It appears House Speaker Paul Ryan and Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady (R-TX) have adopted this approach — but have fallen short of the $2,000, more refundable credit Rubio and Lee want.
  • The child credit would be available for more wealthy households: It would start to phase out at $230,000 in earnings for married couples, as opposed to $110,000 under current law. It would not be expanded for poor families without a tax liability, as Rubio and Lee had proposed.
  • The personal exemption (currently offering households $4,050 per person in deductions) is eliminated, replaced in theory by the higher child credit and standard deduction.

Some deductions are limited, but most remain intact

  • The mortgage interest deduction is unchanged for current homeowners, but for all future mortgages, the benefit would be capped at a home value of $500,000, down from $1 million under current law.
  • The deduction for state and local income/sales taxes would be eliminated.
  • The deduction for state and local property taxes would be capped at $10,000, somewhat curtailing the current tax break.
  • A variety of other, much smaller deductions, like the medical expense deduction and the property casualty loss deductions, are repealed.
  • Most major tax breaks for individuals — the charitable deduction, retirement incentives like 401(k) and IRA provisions, the tax exclusion for employer-provided health care, the earned income tax credit, and the child and dependent care tax credit — would remain unchanged.

Corporate taxes are slashed dramatically

  • The corporate income tax rate will be lowered from 35 percent to 20 percent.
  • The corporate tax will be “territorial”: Foreign income by US companies will be tax-free.
  • All untaxed income currently held overseas will immediately be taxed at a fixed rate: 12 percent for money held in liquid assets like stocks and bonds, 5 percent for intangibles like buildings and factories.
  • Despite the tax being “territorial” in principle, there will be a 10 percent “minimum tax” imposed on profits above a certain threshold from foreign subsidiaries of US companies in the future, to prevent companies from moving income abroad to avoid taxes.
  • Additionally, any money that multinational corporations move from the US abroad will be subject to a new 20 percent tax.
  • Instead of having companies “depreciate” investments by deducting them over several years, companies could immediately expense all their investments. This benefit expires after five years, presumably to save money, which dampens any positive effect it has on economic growth.
  • Companies paying the corporate income tax would face a limit on how much debt they can deduct from their taxable income, a significant change for highly leveraged companies like banks. They could only deduct interest worth up to 30 percent of earnings before interest/taxes/depreciation/amortization. But real estate firms would be exempt from that limit.
  • Two big existing credits for corporations — the research and development tax credit and the low-income housing credit — won’t be repealed. But a deduction for domestic manufacturing is gone.

Pass-throughs like the Trump Organization win big

“Pass-through” companies like LLCs, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and S corporations, which are overwhelmingly owned by rich individuals like Donald Trump and currently pay normal income tax rates after their earnings are returned to the companies’ owners, would get a huge number of tax cuts too:

  • Taxes on pass-through income would be capped at the 25 percent bracket rather than the top individual rate.
  • Pass-through companies would still be able to deduct interest on loans in full, unlike C-corporations.
  • The 25 percent bracket creates a huge loophole for rich people, who could incorporate as sole proprietorships and “contract” with their employers so their income is pass-through income rather than wages.
  • To partially control that, the law would assume that 100 percent of earnings from professional services firms, like law firms and accounting firms, is wages, not pass-through income. For other businesses, people actively involved in the business as more than passive investors would see 70 percent of their income classified as wages and taxed normally, and 30 percent taxed at the pass-through rate.

Two other significant tax provisions are abolished:

  • The alternative minimum tax, which increases taxes for certain affluent or upper-middle-class households, is repealed.
  • The exemption for the estate and gift tax, the most progressive component of the federal tax code, only paid by extremely rich estates, is doubled, further limiting who pays it, and the whole tax is then gradually abolished.

And a brand new 1.4 percent tax on university endowment income is added.

The case for the bill

For the public at large, the case for a massive corporate tax cut is sort of hard to grasp. Seventy-three percent of Americans, and 53 percent of Republicans, say they want corporate taxes either kept the same or raised, according to Pew Research Center polling. That the cuts are pared with some tax increases on individuals, like the elimination of the deduction for state and local income taxes and the Social Security Number requirement which kicks some 3 million kids off the child tax credit, makes the choice even more confounding.

But the GOP has a specific economic theory that it claims supports the bill and makes the changes it envisions worthwhile.

The basic idea is that while most economists believe corporate taxes are primarily paid by owners of capital (that is, people who own stock in corporations) in the form of lower profits, a sizable minority, including White House chief economist Kevin Hassett, think that a large share of the tax is paid by workers in the form of lower wages.

In an influential 2006 paper analyzing data in 72 countries across 22 years, he and his American Enterprise Institute colleague Aparna Mathur estimated that a “1 percent increasein corporate tax rates is associated with nearly a 1 percent drop in wage rates.” A second paper in 2010 found a slightly smaller effect (a 0.5 to 0.6 percent decrease in wage rates per 1 percent increase in corporate tax rates) but still concluded that labor was ultimately paying the tax. More than paying it, in fact — they estimate that labor pays 2,200 percent of the tax’s burden, a really extraordinary estimate.

That suggests that cutting corporate taxes would be a very easy way to raise wages for ordinary workers. Hassett has also gone a step further and, with his AEI colleague Alex Brill, argued that cutting the corporate income tax could raise economic growth enough to actually increase revenue: a Laffer effect. They conclude, based on a data set covering rich developed countries from 1980 to 2005, that the revenue-maximizing corporate tax rate is about 26 percent, significantly below the US rate.

Plenty of economists and tax researchers have argued that Hassett’s results in particular are implausible, and reach some absurd conclusions. Jane Gravelle and Thomas Hungerford at the Congressional Research Service noted that the initial Hassett-Mathur study predicted a $1 increase in the corporate tax would reduce wages by between $22 and $26. Their 2010 follow-up predicted a wage loss of $13 per for every additional dollar paid in corporate taxes. But it’s very strange to imagine a corporation responding to an increase in costs like that. The implication is that corporations could have cut wages significantly before the tax hike without negative consequences and simply didn’t.

A more recent survey of the empirical research by Reed College’s Kimberly Clausing found “very little robust evidence linking corporate tax rates and wages.” The consensus in the field remains that most of the tax is paid by capital (as Treasury and the CBO both assume).

But if you believe that corporate tax cuts lead to raises, then corporate taxes should help workers. The biggest beneficiaries will, again, be rich people earning the most wages, but the benefits will trickle down more broadly too.

Other, smaller provisions of the reform package also have reasonable cases for them. The mortgage interest deduction is a huge distortion that leads to fewer people renting than should and hoards benefits among rich homeowners; the bill would reduce that advantage. Opponents of the state and local tax deduction, which the bill would largely eliminate, argue it’s regressive and concentrates benefits on rich states rather than poor ones that actually need the money. The current mix of standard deductions, personal exemptions, and child credit is needlessly duplicative, and the bill simplifies it a bit.

Others are a bit harder to defend. Many economists oppose wealth taxes like the estate tax on the grounds that they penalize savings, but intergenerational transmission of wealth also has huge negative externalities (heirs less willing to work, less equal politics, etc.) that eliminating the estate tax entirely would worsen.

Cutting taxes on pass-through income is particularly hard to defend. Pass-throughs already get a sizable tax advantage relative to other companies. While corporate profits are taxed in two stages — first by the corporate income tax, and then through dividend or capital gains taxes — pass-through income is only taxed once, at the individual level. This change would worsen that advantage.

Pass-throughs will counter that in many cases, people who own stock through 401(k)s and IRAs don’t have to pay capital gains or dividend taxes, and so their profits are only taxed at the corporate rate, which is lower than the top individual rate (and would be much lower under this plan), putting pass-throughs at a potential disadvantage. But analysts who’ve looked at this comparison generally conclude that pass-throughs are taxed less overall, and certainly don’t need another break.

Where the bill goes from here

As of this writing, the bill has not been officially scored for its cost and distribution, though the Joint Committee on Taxation has reportedly scored it as costing $1.51 trillion, just outside the $1.5 trillion the GOP budget set aside for tax reform.

Given that price tag, it’s hard to imagine the bill not raising the deficit after 10 years. Some provisions phase out, presumably to lower the long-run deficit effects for scoring purposes, but that’s unlikely to be enough. And so long as the legislation still increases the long-run deficit, it’s a nonstarter in the Senate.

What’s likely, then, is that this is an opening entry designed to pass the House and then be worked over, and shrunk in scale, in the Senate.

The legislation will face a lot of pressure to expand or protect certain cuts, and to abandon certain pay-fors. Mortgage lenders and housing builders will push against limiting the mortgage interest deduction, blue-state Republicans will fight the limit on property tax deductions, and just about every business will fight for as much as they can get in corporate tax cuts and pass-through cuts (the fact that lobbying firms are organized as pass-throughs might mean trouble for the rule eliminating pass-through privileges for law firms). Social conservatives and anti-poverty campaigners will fight for a bigger child tax credit, available to more poor families.

All of that makes the bill more expensive, and harder to pass in the Senate. So far, Republican leaders have mostly punted on designing the kinds of pay-fors that would make the plan viable under Senate rules. They can’t keep punting for much longer.

https://www.vox.com/2017/11/2/16596896/house-republican-tax-reform-cuts-trump-ryan-explained

House GOP tax plan filled with tough tradeoffs

The tax overhaul is Republicans’ top priority ahead of next year’s elections, and lawmakers are desperate for a victory after the Obamacare repeal failed.

Updated 

House Republicans unveiled plans Thursday for a sweeping overhaul of the tax system calling for fundamental changes in business and individual taxes, including big cuts in rates and new breaks for families.

It also includes provisions sure to stoke controversy and fierce lobbying, including new limits on the popular mortgage interest deduction. People could only deduct interest on the first $500,000 of loans for newly purchased homes, down from the current $1 million, and lawmakers would eliminate the break for second homes. The bill would also make it harder for people to sell their homes without paying taxes on any capital gains.

And there would be sharply lower limits on a long-standing break for state and local taxes.

While big companies would get a significantly lower 20 percent corporate rate, down from 35 percent, they would face new limits on their ability to deduct interest on their loans, a new global minimum tax on their overseas earnings, and new taxes on U.S. companies heading abroad.

Republicans dropped a contentious plan to curb tax benefits for 401(k) retirement plans, which had GOP lawmakers cheering House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady at a closed door briefing on the plan.

The unveiling of the 429-page bill — and a summary that runs 82 pages — kicks off what is sure to be a grueling slog to get legislation to President Donald Trump by the end of the year.

Exactly who would lose in the proposal — dubbed the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” — has been a closely guarded secret, and many lawmakers will surely be surprised at the scope of changes needed to make the numbers behind the plan work.

Several influential business groups slammed the proposal.

The National Federation of Independent Business announced its opposition, citing restrictions lawmakers included on which small businesses can claim their lower tax rate on unincorporated “pass-through” firms. The issue has been one of the most difficult for lawmakers to work out, and could prove to be one of the most contentious going forward.

Though lawmakers would reduce the rate on those businesses to 25 percent, there would be limits on which firms could take advantage, provisions designed to avoid gaming by wealthy individuals.

Under the proposal, pass-throughs would get the lower rate on 30 percent of their profits, with the remainder taxed at ordinary income tax rates, though there would be circumstances in which businesses could qualify for a bigger share being subject to the special rate. That means, though, that some pass- throughs would actually pay more than 25 percent under the plan.

“This bill leaves too many small businesses behind,” said Juanita Duggan, the group’s president. “We believe that tax reform should provide substantial relief to all small businesses.”

The National Association of Home Builders said the legislation “eviscerates” housing tax benefits, and “abandons middle class taxpayers.”

The National Association of Realtors meanwhile has already begun lobbying against the proposal, running online ads in tax writers’ districts. “Don’t let tax reform become a tax increase for middle-class homeowners,” the ad says.

Other business groups embraced the plan, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable.

“This bold tax reform bill is exactly what our nation needs to get our economy growing faster,” said Neil Bradley, a senior vice president at the Chamber of Commerce. Said Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan Chase & Co. and the Business Roundtable: “We support this tax reform effort because it is good for all Americans.”

The plan is Republicans’ top priority ahead of next year’s elections, and lawmakers are desperate for a victory to take to voters after the failed campaign to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans are hoping to move it quickly through the House, with committee action penciled in for next week. Lawmakers aim to forward it on to the Senate later this month. Senate Republicans are working on their own competing plan they aim to unveil next week. Lawmakers hope to land a compromise on Trump’s desk by the end of the year.

House leaders, who have written the plan in secret, have avoided identifying most of the breaks that would be quashed under the proposal in order to keep lobbyists at bay. But many Republicans had little inkling of what’s in the bill, and the strategy means leaders have not had much opportunity to build support among rank-and-file members for controversial proposals.

The bill is loaded with sure-to-be contentious ideas affecting broad swathes of the economy. It would delete a long-standing deduction for people with high medical bills — including those with chronic conditions. People would have to live longer in their homes, under the bill, to qualify for tax-free treatment of capital gains when they sell their houses.

It would also kill a long-standing breaks for adoptions, and for student loan interest costs. Private universities would face a new 1.4 percent tax on their investment earnings from their endowments. The Work Opportunity Credit, which encourages businesses to hire veterans, would be eliminated. So too would the New Markets Tax credit, which encourages investment in poor areas.

Tax benefits related to fringe benefits would be curtailed. It would also dump a long-standing break for casualty losses that allow people to deduct things lost in fires and storms, although it would continue to allow the provision for people hit by hurricanes — no doubt reflecting the influence of Brady, whose Houston-area district was hit by Hurricane Harvey.

Foreign companies operating in the United States would face higher taxes under the proposal, as would companies such as pharmaceutical firms that move overseas and want to sell goods back to the United States.

An official cost estimate of the legislation was not immediately available, though Brady said that would be released Thursday. He said the legislation met his party’s budget stipulating that they could not cut taxes by more than $1.5 trillion.

For individuals, the plan would reduce the number of tax brackets to four from the current seven, with the top rate remaining at 39.6 percent. Republicans would more than double the income threshold at which the top rate would kick in to $1 million for married couples. They would simultaneously raise taxes on the rich, though, by limiting their ability to take advantage of their lowest income tax bracket. The 35 percent bracket would begin at $260,000 for married couples, and the threshold for a 25 percent bracket would be $90,000 under the plan.

Republicans would also get rid of personal exemptions, which are designed to adjust tax burdens for family size. The plan would instead double the standard deduction while increasing both the size of the child tax credit to $1,600, from the current $1000, while increasing the income threshold at which it could be claimed. They would also create a new $300 credit for adult dependents as well as another $300 “family flexibility” credit.

The bill would ease the estate tax by doubling the threshold at which it would kick in before eventually repealing it.

But they would face new limits on their ability to deduct interest payments on the money they borrow. They would also face a new 10 percent foreign minimum tax targeting companies that squirrel away money in offshore tax havens. Life insurance companies would lose a number of tax benefits, private activity bonds would be eliminated and tax-exempt bonds could no longer be used to help build professional sports stadiums.

Rachael Bade and Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/02/tax-reform-house-gop-plan-244453

House GOP Tax Plan Sticks With Big Corporate Cuts

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act seeks the biggest transformation of tax code in more than 30 years; leaves top individual tax rate at 39.6%

WASHINGTON—House Republicans, seeking the biggest transformation of the U.S. tax code in more than 30 years, aim to permanently chop the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%, compress the number of individual income tax brackets, and over time repeal the taxes paid by large estates.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-stick-with-big-corporate-tax-cuts-in-house-bill-1509629510

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-994

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

 

Trump picks Jerome Powell to succeed Yellen as Fed chair

  • President Donald Trump nominated Jerome Powell to run the Federal Reserve once current Chair Janet Yellen’s term expires in February.
  • Powell led a diverse field of potential nominees that included former Governor Kevin Warsh, Stanford economist John Taylor, chief Trump economic advisor Gary Cohn, and Yellen herself.
  • Yellen’s term has been marked by a mostly uninterrupted bull market that began in March 2009 and low interest rates even as the Fed has sought to unwind the stimulus initiated during the crisis.

President Donald Trump announces his nominee for Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell (L), in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC, November 2, 2017.

President Trump announces Jerome Powell as next Fed chair nominee  

President Donald Trump nominated Jerome Powell to run the Federal Reserve once current Chair Janet Yellen’s term expires, in a move widely expected and one unlikely to disturb the roaring stock market.

Trump made the announcement during a Thursday afternoon ceremony in the Rose Garden.

The move follows an extended period of speculation over who would be named to head the central bank, whose aggressive policies have been considered central to a climate of low interest rates, surging job creation and booming asset prices.

“Today is an important milestone on the path to restoring economic opportunity to the American people,” Trump said with Powell standing to his right and the prospective chairman’s family nearby. The president said the Fed requires “strong, sound and steady leadership” and Powell “will provide exactly that type of leadership.”

“He’s strong, he’s committed and he’s smart, and if he is confirmed by the Senate, Jay will put his considerable talents and experience to work leading our nation’s independent central bank,” Trump added.

President Donald Trump announces Federal Reserve board member Jerome Powell as his nominee for the next chair of the Federal Reserve in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 2, 2017.

Alex Brandon | Reuters
President Donald Trump announces Federal Reserve board member Jerome Powell as his nominee for the next chair of the Federal Reserve in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 2, 2017.

Powell led a diverse field of potential nominees that included former Governor Kevin Warsh, Stanford economist John Taylor, chief Trump economic advisor Gary Cohn, and Yellen herself.

Trump’s relationship with Yellen has evolved; during the 2016 presidential campaign he said the Fed chief should be “ashamed” of the way she has run the Fed, arguing that Yellen kept policy loose for political reasons to boost the fortunes of former President Barack Obama.

Since taking office, though, his views have changed and he offered warm words for her Thursday despite deciding to replace Yellen and make her the briefest-serving Fed chair since G. William Miller from 1978-79.

Yellen’s term has been marked by a mostly uninterrupted bull market run in stocks that began in March 2009 and low interest rates even as the Fed has sought to unwind the stimulus initiated during the crisis. The central bank has hiked its benchmark interest rate four times under Yellen and has taken the first steps in unwinding the $4.5 trillion balance sheet built up during the efforts to spur growth through bond purchases.

Yellen is “a wonderful woman who’s done a terrific job,” Trump said. “We have been working together for 10 months and she is absolutely a spectacular person. Janet, thank you very much. We appreciate it.”

Though the Powell nomination was widely reported and anticipated for weeks, markets reacted positively to the announcement, with the Dow industrials tacking on about 60 points in the half-hour or so after Trump took the podium.

“Jerome Powell is a smart choice for Fed chair,” said Richard Clarida, global strategic advisor at bond giant Pimco. “He is likely to provide monetary policy continuity by adopting Yellen’s framework of gradually normalizing rates and predictably reducing the Fed’s balance sheet. He is also likely to be more receptive to calls for adjusting financial regulation prudently, especially for smaller banks.”

Powell had been named to fill an unexpired term in 2012 that won’t end until 2028. He is viewed as a convenient choice, someone who likely will continue the programs of the Yellen Fed but allow Trump a chance to put his own stamp on the central bank.

“I’m both honored and humbled by this opportunity to serve our great country,” Powell said. “If I am confirmed by the Senate, I will do everything within my power to achieve our congressional assigned goals of stable prices and maximum employment.”

The Fed is in the midst of normalizing the historically accommodative monetary policy it had begun to help pull the U.S. from the throes of the financial crisis and the Great Recession.

Under Yellen, the Fed has hiked interest rates four times and is expected to approve another increase in December. In addition, it is unwinding its $4.5 trillion balance sheet, which primarily consists of bonds the Fed purchased in an effort to drive down mortgage rates and push investors to risk assets like stocks and corporate bonds.

Powell has been part of the Fed’s voting consensus since taking his seat, not once veering from the majority’s position.

“I think the president has made a spectacular choice, and I’m really supportive of what the president is doing,” Cohn told the Economic Club of Washington, D.C. earlier in the day.

But the move had some critics, primarily from those worried about Powell’s academic background. Most Fed chairs have been PhDs and have more background in economics than Powell, who has spent much of his career as a lawyer, in investment banking and at the Treasury under former President George H.W. Bush.

” Powell’s resume is not up to the standards we would expect of a nominee for Fed Chair,” Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at forecasting firm Capital Economics said in a note. “The risk of a serious policy mistake — in either direction — will arguably be higher under Powell’s leadership than under Yellen’s.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/02/trump-picks-jerome-powell-to-succeed-yellen-as-fed-chair.html

 

 

Jerome H. Powell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jerome H. Powell
Jerome H. Powell.jpg
16th Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Nominee
Assumed office
February 4, 2018*
President Donald Trump
Preceded by Janet Yellen
Member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
Assumed office
May 25, 2012
President Barack Obama
Preceded by Frederic Mishkin
Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance
In office
1992–1993
President George H. W. Bush
Preceded by Robert R. Glauber
Succeeded by Frank N. Newman
Personal details
Born Jerome Hayden Powell
February 4, 1953 (age 64)
Washington, D.C.
Political party Republican[1]
Spouse(s) Elissa Leonard (m. 1985)
Children 3
Residence Chevy Chase, Maryland
Education Princeton University (BA)
Georgetown University (JD)
Net worth $19.7 – 55 million[2][3]
*Pending Senate confirmation

Jerome Hayden Powell (born February 4, 1953) is a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and has served since 2012. On November 2, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Powell to serve as the Chair of the Federal Reserve.[4]

Early life and education

Jerome H. Powell was born on February 4, 1953 in Washington, D.C., the son of Patricia (Hayden) and Jerome Powell, a lawyer in private practice.[5] His maternal grandfather, James J. Hayden, was Dean of the Columbus School of Law.[6]

In 1971, Powell graduated from Georgetown Preparatory School, a Jesuit university-preparatory school. He received a Bachelor of Arts in politics from Princeton University in 1975. In 1975-1976, he spent a year as a legislative assistant to Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania,[7][8] who ran an unsuccessful campaign for Vice President of the United States on a ticket with Ronald Reagan during the primary election in 1976.

Powell earned a Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown University in 1979, where he was editor-in-chief of the Georgetown Law Journal.[9]

Career

In 1979, Powell moved to New York City and became a clerk to Judge Ellsworth Van Graafeiland of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. From 1981 to 1983, he was a lawyer with Davis Polk & Wardwell, and from 1983 to 1984, he worked at the firm of Werbel & McMillen.[8]

From 1984 to 1990, Powell worked at Dillon, Read & Co., an investment bank, where he concentrated on financing, merchant banking, and mergers and acquisitions, rising to the position of vice president.[8][10]

Between 1990 and 1993, Powell worked in the United States Department of the Treasury, at which time Nicholas F. Brady, the former chairman of Dillon, Read & Co., was the United States Secretary of the Treasury. In 1992, Powell became the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance after being nominated by George H. W. Bush.[8][10][7] During his stint at the Treasury, Powell oversaw the investigation and sanctioning of Salomon Brothers after one of its traders submitted false bids for a United States Treasury security.[11] Powell was also involved in the negotiations that made Warren Buffett the chairman of Salomon.[12]

In 1993, Powell began working as a managing director for Bankers Trust, but he quit in 1995 after the bank got into trouble after several customers suffered large losses due to derivatives. He then went back to work for Dillon, Read & Co.[10]

From 1997 to 2005, Powell was a partner at The Carlyle Group, where he founded and led the Industrial Group within the Carlyle U.S. Buyout Fund.[9][13]

After leaving Carlyle, Powell founded Severn Capital Partners, a private investment firm focused on specialty finance and opportunistic investments in the industrial sector.[14]

In 2008, Powell became a managing partner of the Global Environment Fund, a private equity and venture capital firm that invests in sustainable energy.[14]

Between 2010 and 2012, Powell was a visiting scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C., where he worked on getting Congress to raise the United States debt ceiling during the United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011. Powell presented the implications to the economy and interest rates of a default or a delay in raising the debt ceiling.[13] He worked for a salary of $1 per year.[3]

Federal Reserve Board of Governors

In December 2011, along with Jeremy C. Stein, Powell was nominated to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by President Barack Obama. The nomination included two people to help garner bipartisan support for both nominees since Stein’s nomination had previously been filibustered. Powell’s nomination was the first time that a president nominated a member of the opposition party for such a position since 1988.[1] He took office on May 25, 2012, to fill the unexpired term of Frederic Mishkin, who resigned. In January 2014, he was nominated for another term, and, in June 2014, he was confirmed by the United States Senate in a 67-24 vote for a 14-year term ending January 31, 2028.[15]

In 2013, Powell made a speech regarding financial regulation and ending “too big to fail“.[16] In April 2017, he took over oversight of the “too big to fail” banks.[17]

Nomination as Chair of the Federal Reserve

On November 2, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Powell to serve as the Chair of the Federal Reserve.[4]

Economic philosophy

Monetary policy

A survey of 30 economists in March 2017 noted that Powell was slightly more of a monetary dove than the average member of the Board of Governors. However, The Bloomberg Intelligence Fed Spectrometer rated Powell as neutral (i.e. neither a hawk or a dove). Powell has been a skeptic of round 3 of quantitative easing, initiated in 2012, although he did vote in favor of implementation.

Financial regulation

Powell “appears to largely support” the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, although he has stated that ““we can do it more efficiently”.[18]

In an October 2017 speech, Powell stated that higher capital and liquidity requirements and stress tests have made the financial system safer and must be preserved. However, he also stated that the Volcker Rule should be re-written to exclude smaller banks and asked “Can we achieve this safety and soundness objective, this stability objective, at a lower cost to consumers and financial institutions?”[19]

Housing finance reform[edit]

In a July 2017 speech, Powell said that, in regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the status quo is “unacceptable” and that the current situation “may feel comfortable, but it is also unsustainable”. He warned that “the next few years may present our last best chance” to “address the ultimate status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” and avoid “repeating the mistakes of the past”. Powell expressed concerns that, in the current situation, the government is responsible for mortgage defaults and that lending standards were too rigid, noting that these can be solved by encouraging “ample amounts of private capital to support housing finance activities”.[20]

Personal life

In 1985, Powell married Ellissa Leonard.[5] They have 3 children[9] and reside in Chevy Chase Village, Maryland, where Ellissa is vice chair of the board of managers.[21] In 2006, they purchased a house for $3 million.[22]

In 2017, Powell reported that he had a net worth of between $19.7 million and $55 million, making him the richest member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.[2][3]

Powell has served on the boards of charitable and educational institutions including DC Prep, a public charter school, the Bendheim Center for Finance at Princeton University, and The Nature Conservancy. He was also a founder of the Center City Consortium, a group of 16 parochial schools in the poorest areas of Washington, D.C.[13]

Powell is a registered Republican.[1] In 2008, he contributed $30,800 to the 2008 election campaign of John McCain.[23]

References

  1. Jump up to:a b c APPELBAUM, BINYAMIN (December 27, 2011). “Obama to Nominate Two for Vacancies on Fed Board”The New York Times.
  2. Jump up to:a b “Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 278e)” (PDF). United States Office of Government Ethics. June 28, 2017.
  3. Jump up to:a b c Long, Heather (October 31, 2017). “Jerome Powell, Trump’s pick to lead Fed, would be the richest chair since the 1940s”The Washington Post.
  4. Jump up to:a b Gensler, Lauren (November 2, 2017). “Trump Taps Jerome Powell As Next Fed Chair In Call For Continuity”Forbes.
  5. Jump up to:a b “ELISSA LEONARD WED TO JEROME H. POWELL”The New York Times. September 15, 1985.
  6. Jump up^ “Patricia H. Powell’s Obituary on The Washington Post”The Washington Post.
  7. Jump up to:a b “Nomination of Jerome H. Powell To Be an Under Secretary of the Treasury” (Press release). University of California, Santa Barbara. April 9, 1992.
  8. Jump up to:a b c d GREENHOUSE, STEVEN (April 14, 1992). “New Duties Familiar To Treasury Nominee”The New York Times.
  9. Jump up to:a b c “Board Members: Jerome H. Powell”Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
  10. Jump up to:a b c “Banker Joins Dillon, Read”The New York Times. February 17, 1995.
  11. Jump up^ Powell, Jerome (October 5, 2017). “Treasury Markets and the TMPG”Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
  12. Jump up^ Loomis, Carol J. (October 27, 1997). “Warren Buffett’s Wild Ride at Salomon”Fortune.
  13. Jump up to:a b c “Bipartisan Policy Center: Jerome Powell”Bipartisan Policy Center.
  14. Jump up to:a b “GEF Adds to Investment Team” (Press release). Business Wire. July 8, 2008.
  15. Jump up^ “PN1350 — Jerome H. Powell — Federal Reserve System”United States Senate.
  16. Jump up^ Robb, Greg (March 4, 2013). “Fed’s Powell: Ending too big to fail to take years”MarketWatch.
  17. Jump up^ Borak, Donna (April 7, 2017). “Fed taps Jerome Powell to head oversight of ‘too big to fail’ banks”CNNMoney.
  18. Jump up^ Matthews, Steve (October 5, 2017). “Trump’s Short List for Fed Chair Features These Hawks and Doves”Bloomberg L.P.
  19. Jump up^ Price, Michelle; Schroeder, Pete (October 31, 2017). “Good news for overburdened small banks if Powell picked for Fed chair”Reuters.
  20. Jump up^ Klein, Matthew C. (July 7, 2017). “Jerome Powell has some curious ideas about housing finance”Financial Times.
  21. Jump up^ “Chevy Chase Village: Staff Directory”Chevy Chase Village, Maryland.
  22. Jump up^ “Home Sales”The Washington Post. October 12, 2006.
  23. Jump up^ “SCHEDULE A (FEC) ITEMIZED RECEIPTS”Federal Election Commission. May 27, 2008.

External links

Government offices
Preceded by
Robert R. Glauber
Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance
1992–1993
Succeeded by
Frank N. Newman
Preceded by
Frederic Mishkin
Member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
2012–present
Incumbent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H._Powell

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 985, Story 1: Fed Draining The Swamp — A Flattening Treasury Yield Curve Indicator of Possible Recession Especially If Republican Controlled Congress Fails To Totally and Completely Repeal and Replace Obamacare and Passes Trump’s Timid Tiny Targeted Temporary Tax Cut For Middle Class — Replace All Federal Taxes With A Broad Based Consumption Tax With Generous Tax Prebates And Balanced Budgets — FairTax or Fair Tax Less That Democrats, Republicans and Independents Would Pass — Otherwise Recession in 2018 –Videos

Posted on October 18, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Culture, Disasters, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Health, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Monetary Policy, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Security, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Trade Policy, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Image result for cartoons on trump's tax cut

Story 1: Fed Draining The Swamp — A Flattening Treasury Yield Curve Indicator of Possible Recession Especially If Republican Controlled Congress Fails To Totally and Completely Repeal and Replace Obamacare and Passes Trump’s Timid Tiny Targeted Temporary Tax Cut For Middle Class — Replace All Federal Taxes With A Broad Based Consumption Tax With Generous Tax Prebates And Balanced Budgets — FairTax or Fair Tax Less That Democrats, Republicans and Independents Would Pass — Otherwise Recession in 2018 –Videos

US Economy: Where We Are Right Now

Major Economic Crash + Recession coming 2018

GE’s CEO Says the U.S. Economy Is in Investment Recession

Wilbur Ross: Trump’s tax reductions will grow the economy

Wilbur Ross: U.S. Recession Likely in Next 18 Months

PETER SCHIFF STOCK MARKET CRASH IS COMING OCTOBER 2017

A Great Crash Is Coming! Stock Market Crash Imminent Economic Collapse In 2017 – 2018

Jim Rogers (October 14, 2017) – What will collapse first

Jim Rogers (October 09, 2017) – Expects the worst crash in our lifetime

RAY DALIO: US economy looks like 1937 and we need to be careful

Jim Rickards (October 02, 2017) – The Coming Big Freeze – The Daily Reckoning

Analyzing Trump’s Tax Plan

🔴 Ep. 287: Pros and Cons of the Trump Tax Plan

Ben Shapiro: The analysis of President Trump’s tax reform plan (audio from 09-28-2017)

TAX PLAN: Insane Bernie Attacks Trump! | Louder With Crowder

LIMBAUGH: Trump’s Tax Plan Is NOT A Tax Break For The Rich

Tax Cuts Mean Nothing So Long As We Refuse to Nationalize and Control the Federal Reserve

G. Edward Griffin: Donald Trump is an Amazing Phenomenon

G. Edward Griffin — The Federal Reserve, Taxes, The I.R.S. & Solutions

Jim Rickards (October 02, 2017) – Fed to Cause A Recession

Jim Rickards (September 25, 2017) – Collapse & War with N Korea

Greenspan: You Can’t Fix U.S. Economy Until You Fix Entitlements

Keiser Report: Is US really a 3% GDP economy? (E1119)

Robert Shiller // Why it’s become hard to predict the markets

Nassim Taleb on Black Monday, Fed, Market Lessons

Nassim Nicholas Taleb Sees Greater Risks Than Nuclear War

Nassim Nicholas Taleb Sees Worse Tail Risks Than in 2007

Keiser Report: Gutting of America’s Wealth Creation Machine (E1097)

David Stockman // Black swan event to trigger a deep correction

David Stockman // Tax cut, reform will fall apart

Ep. 292: Record Confidence in U.S. Stocks Means Trouble Ahead

Stockman: Trump’s Now ‘Blowing Kisses to Janet Yellen’ (Fox Business, September 15, 2017)

Jim Rogers // The next bear market will be the worst in our lifetime

Stock Market Party Coming To An End Warns Marc Faber – (Part 1/3)

Marc Faber // Get ready for a massive stock market decline

Marc FABER (NEW REPORT) – Making America Broke Again: Trump & The Inevitable Financial Crisis

Sam Zell // This is not a time to ‘buy anything’

MUST SEE! U.S Economic Outlook: 3 Recession Indicators Flashing Red

A flatter yield curve says the market isn’t worried about inflation

What is Yield Curve?

Introduction to the yield curve | Stocks and bonds | Finance & Capital Markets | Khan Academy

The Inverted Yield Curve, Lecture 016, Securities Investment 101, Video00018

We Can Pretend All We Want, The US Is In A Recession & Heading For The Big One – Episode 1311a

YIELD CURVE GETTING READY TO INVERT?

Jim Rickards on Keiser Report: We don’t need to worry about a recession; we’re in a depression

Published on May 23, 2013

Neil Howe — The really big crisis has yet to arrive!

Neil Howe and William Strauss on The Fourth Turning in 1997 CSpan

Neil Howe and William Strauss on Generations in 1998 CSpan

Neil Howe: It’s going to get worse; more financial crises coming

The Fourth Turning: Why American ‘Crisis’ May Last Until 2030

 

Bond market flashing warning sign even as stocks rally to new highs

  • Bond pros are watching a phenomenon in the bond market that could signal recession ahead and trouble for the stock market.
  • The yield curve is flattening, meaning the spread between 2-year note yields and 10-year yields is narrowing, and at 0.75, it was the lowest since before the financial crisis.
  • Even though the move is a warning, strategists say some of the action has to do with the Fed reversing long-term easing policy and may not be a problem for stocks.

Bond market flashing warning sign even as stocks rally to new highs

Bond market flashing warning sign even as stocks rally to new highs  

The bond market is warning that trouble could be on the horizon, either from an economic slowdown or an eventual recession.

The yield curve, a set of interest rates watched closely by bond market pros, has gotten to its flattest level since before the financial crisis. The spread between 2-year note yields and 10-year yields this week reached near the lows, at about 0.75, it has been since before the financial crisis.

“It certainly is giving you some sort of signal in here. The signals are when the yield curve flattens, it tells you that inflation is not a problem and the Fed is doing something at the front end,” said David Ader, Informa Financial Intelligence chief macro strategist. “Historically, it signals a slowdown or recession.”

But with the Federal Reserve set to raise interest rates in December, and uncertainty about who the next Fed chief will be, there are also other concerns in the market, including that a new Fed head could be more hawkish and set the Fed on a more rapid rate-hiking course.

“It’s also telling you there could be a policy error in the Fed’s hiking particularly if they accelerate it,” said Ader. Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s monthly fund manager survey showed that fund managers in October believe the biggest risk for markets is a central bank policy misstep.

Treasurys on the move  

Some strategists say ignore it at your own peril, but others point to the fact that stocks can still rally when longer-duration interest rates are low but the short-term rate is rising.

The fear is that a flattening yield curve could lead to an inversion, meaning the short-end rate would actually go higher than the longer-end yield. That is typically viewed as a recession signal, and the flattening curve is a warning of that.

“Typically you eventually get to a much flatter yield that could lead to a recession,” said Peter Boockvar, chief market analyst with the Lindsey Group. “Right now it’s hard to get to inversion because of how actually low short-term interest rates are. You don’t need to get to the inversion this time.”

Jeff Gundlach, CEO of DoubleLine, weighed in on Twitter, pointing out that stock market bulls point to low rates as a positive, yet rates are climbing. The 2-year yield was at a new nine-year high Wednesday, touching 1.57 percent, while the 10-year was at 2.34 percent.

2 year Tsy yield back on the rise. Should accelerate w/ a close above 1.56%. Keep hearing SPX P/E OK due to low rates. But they are rising.

Strategists say years of quantitative easing by global central banks and extreme low interest rates cast doubt on some of the conventional wisdom about bond behavior. For instance, the Fed is also slowing down its purchases of Treasurys, mostly at the short end, and that could be influencing the behavior of the curve.

“I think it’s the expectation that further Fed tightening, whether it’s on the short end or it’s the quantitative tightening, is eventually going to slow the U.S. economy, and that’s what the yield curve is saying, while the stock market is drunk on hopes for tax reform,” Boockvar said. At the same time, expectations for a Fed rate hike at its December meeting continue to rise.

Wealth manager: bond markets are creating the 'biggest financial crisis of our lifetime'

Wealth manager: Bond markets are creating the ‘biggest financial crisis of our lifetime’  

Dallas Fed President Rob Kaplan said the low rate of the 10-year may not be because of easy financial conditions. “That may be a sign of worry about future growth,” Kaplan told reporters after participating on a panel with New York Fed President William Dudley about regional economic trends.

Source: Strategas Research

Todd Sohn, technical analyst at Strategas, looked at the behavior of the stock market during periods of flattening yield curves, and he found that until the curve actually inverted, stocks performed very well. In some cases, it took awhile for stocks to react when the curve inverted.

“It’s on our mind,” he said. “But until you get the inversion I don’t think we should put too much weight on it. Equity performance is still positive.”

Sohn said as the curve flattened between August 1977 and August 1978, for example, the S&P 500 gained 7 percent. But after the curve inverted in August 1978, the S&P corrected, falling about 14 percent from September to mid-November.

As the curve flattened between July 1988 and January 1989, the S&P was up 9 percent. But Sohn said after the curve inverted in January 1989, the S&P went uninterrupted until October 1989, when it corrected about 10 percent through February 1990. Then it saw a 20 percent correction from July 1990 to October 1990.

“The curve inversion in June 1998 saw a sharp 19 percent S&P correction from mid-July 1998 and the end of August 1998… before the race higher into the March 2000 peak,” he noted.

Just ahead of the financial crisis, the curve inverted in January 2006. There was a shallow 8 percent correction from May to June 2006, and stocks moved higher until October 2007.

“It’s very case-by-case but curve inversion does typically lead to some form of a correction,” Sohn noted. “We’re not there yet but just something worth keeping in mind.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/18/bond-market-flashing-warning-sign-even-as-stocks-rally-to-new-highs.html

Here’s how the Fed is flattening the yield curve

Published: Oct 18, 2017 2:42 p.m. ET

‘There is a sense that the market is getting ahead of itself’: BMO

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
One way to flatten things.

By SUNNYOH

Traders betting on a steeper yield curve are being thwarted by two factors: a Federal Reserve intent on raising rates and lackluster inflation. This potent combination is making for the flattest yield curve by one measure in nearly a decade.

The yield curve is a line plotting the yields across Treasury maturities from the shortest dated to the longest, and can reflect investor expectations for growth and inflation. A flatter curve is seen as a sign investors are worried about growth.

SeeShould investors still worry if the yield curve sends this ominous signal?

After four rate increases in the current hiking cycle, the spread between the 5-year yield TMUBMUSD05Y, +2.22%   and the 30-year yield TMUBMUSD30Y, +1.78%   one way to assess the curve’s steepness, narrowed to 0.86 percentage point. The curve has flattened steadily since Donald Trump’s presidential election victory last November sparked a selloff in long-dated Treasurys on fears that his pro-growth agenda would spur inflation. Yields and bond prices move in opposite directions.

The dramatic speed of the flattening has surprised investors. In the past four tightening cycles, the gap between the 5-year yield and the 30-year yield narrowed on average by 0.98 percentage point. But after peaking at 3.02 percentage points in November 2010, the spread has tightened by 2.18 percentage points.

“There is a sense that the market is getting ahead of itself in the aggressiveness of the flattening currently underway,” wrote Ian Lyngen and Aaron Kohli, fixed-income strategists at BMO Capital Markets.

ReadInvestors fear a Fed policy misstep as central bank reaffirms rate-hike trajectory

Traders tend to concentrate on the spread between the 5-year yield and the 30-year yield versus other measures of the curve. The 5-year yield can serve as a more accurate reflection of market expectations for short-term rates than the 2-year yieldTMUBMUSD02Y, +2.41%  , which is largely under the central bank’s control, said Tim Alt, director of currencies and rates at Aviva Investors.

At the long end of the curve, the 30-year yield has slipped as inflation expectations weaken. Investors demand more of a yield premium when they fear inflation is on the rise because inflation erodes the purchasing power of future cash flows.

“It is the lack of inflation and anemic term premium that are exaggerating the move,” wrote Lyngen and Kohli. The term premium refers to the extra yield investors need to be compensated for buying a long-dated bond if short-term yields do not develop as expected.

The narrowing term premium reflects the newfound transparency of the Federal Reserve under Chairwoman Janet Yellen and former chairman Ben Bernanke, said Marvin Loh, senior fixed-income strategist at BNY Mellon.

Since the Fed’s September policy meeting, investors have been inundated with speeches from central bankers. Every voting member of the Fed’s interest-rate setting body has delivered public remarks, many more than once, giving market participants a clear idea of the central bank’s plans, as well as factors that could forestall the current tightening path.

On the flip side, the central bank’s push to telegraph its intentions have also helped power short-dated yields TMUBMUSD02Y, +2.41%   to their highest level since the recession. Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan highlighted this trend, saying the central bank should raise rates one more time this year on Tuesday. The Federal Reserve has signaled further rate rises on the assumption that tightness in labor markets will spur wage growth and, in turn, inflation.

But inflation has been absent in recent months. The Fed’s preferred inflation measure, known as the personal consumption expenditures deflator, was 1.43% year-over-year in August, a steady descent from the five-year high of 2.18% notched in February.

Nonetheless, Yellen has tried to get ahead of the curve, adding to investors’ concerns that a lack of price pressures will not put off the central bank’s plan to see interest rates move higher.

Also readFed flunks econ 101: understanding inflation

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-the-fed-is-flattening-the-yield-curve-2017-10-18

One Of These 3 Black Swans Will Likely Trigger A Global Recession By End Of 2018

 Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Shutterstock

Exactly ten years ago, we were months way from a world-shaking financial crisis.

By late 2006, we had an inverted yield curve steep to be a high-probability indicator of recession. I estimated at that time that the losses would be $400 billion at a minimum. Yet, most of my readers and fellow analysts told me I was way too bearish.

Turned out the losses topped well over $2 trillion and triggered the financial crisis and Great Recession.

Conditions in the financial markets needed only a spark from the subprime crisis to start a firestorm all over the world. Plenty of things were waiting to go wrong, and it seemed like they all did at the same time.

We don’t have an inverted yield curve now. But when the central bank artificially holds down short-term rates, it is difficult, if not almost impossible, for the yield curve to invert.

We have effectively suppressed the biggest warning signal.

But there is another recession in our future (there is always another recession), which I think will ensue by the end of 2018. And it’s going to be at least as bad as the last one was in terms of the global pain it causes.

Below are three scenarios that may turn out to be fateful black swans. But remember this: A harmless white swan can look black in the right lighting conditions. Sometimes, that’s all it takes to start a panic.

Black Swan #1: Yellen Overshoots

It is clear that the U.S. economy is not taking off like the rocket some predicted after the election:

  • President Trump and the Republicans haven’t been able to pass any of the fiscal stimulus measures we hoped to see.
  • Banks and energy companies are getting some regulatory relief, and that helps, but it’s a far cry from the sweeping health care reform, tax cuts and infrastructure spending we were promised.
  • Consumer spending is still weak, so people may be less confident than the sentiment surveys suggest. Inflation has perked up in certain segments like health care and housing, but otherwise it’s still low to nonexistent.

Is this, by any stretch of the imagination, the kind of economy in which the Federal Reserve should be tightening monetary policy? No—yet the Fed is doing so.

It’s in part because they waited too long to end QE and to begin reducing their balance sheet. FOMC members know they are behind the curve, and they want to pay lip service to doing something before their terms end.

Plus, Janet Yellen, Stanley Fischer and the other FOMC members are religiously devoted to the Phillips curve.

The black-swan risk here is that the Fed will tighten too much, too soon.

We know from recent FOMC minutes that some members have turned hawkish in part because they wanted to offset expected fiscal stimulus from the incoming administration. That stimulus has not been coming, but the FOMC is still acting as if it will be.

What happens when the Fed raises interest rates in the early, uncertain stages of a recession instead of lowering them? Logic suggests the Fed will curb any inflation pressure that exists and push the economy into outright deflation.

Deflation in an economy as debt-burdened as ours could be catastrophic.

Let me make an uncomfortable prediction: I think the Trump Fed—and since Trump will appoint at least six members of the FOMC in the coming year, it will be his Fed—will take us back down the path of massive quantitative easing and perhaps even to negative rates if we enter a recession.

The urge to “do something,” or at least be seen as trying to do something, is just going to be too strong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/07/27/one-of-these-3-black-swans-will-likely-trigger-a-global-recession-by-end-of-2018/#520a1131875f

4 Non-Reasons For Recession In 2018

 Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Forecasts of a recession next year are nothing new. In early 2016, I noticed analysts saying we might are already be in recession. One source quoted perennial bear Peter Schiff, another interviewed Jim Grant, and gold bug David Haggith wrote that we definitely were in recession. Not only did 2016 turn out to be not a recession, but it looks like 2017 won’t be either.

Dr. Bill Conerly based on Wall Street Journal survey.

Risk of Recession

Recessions don’t just happen randomly, nor do they occur because the expansion is old, nor do they come about because a certain person is in the White House. There is always a trigger, so we’ll go through the usual causes of recession.

1. Overly tight monetary policy is the most common cause of recession, but is unlikely right now. Here in the United States, the Federal Reserve caused or played a large role in the recessions of 1973-74, 1980, 1982, 1990 and 2001. I’ve heard it argued monetary policy was overly tight in 2008, but I don’t buy that as the cause of that recession, but perhaps the cause of the anemic recovery.

 Risk of Recession

Could monetary policy be tight enough to trigger a recession in 2018? Keep in mind that monetary policy acts with long time lags, so a December rate hike wouldn’t do much damage in the following year. The Fed’s rate hikes this year total one-half a percentage point, with perhaps one or two more on the way. (That’s the Fed’s own guess; mine is no more rate hikes this year.)

When the Fed moves strongly, it pushes short-term interest rates about three percentage points in a year. (1969, 1973, 1979, 1981, 1989) In the past six months, short-term interest rates have risen three-quarters of a percent—hardly a recessionary change.

 Yield curve June 2017 and 2016
Dr. Bill Conerly based on Federal Reserve data.

Yield curve June 2017 and 2016

The yield curve is a common expression of monetary policy and works pretty well as a predictive indicator. When interest rates are plotted against time to maturity—one month Treasury notes on the left and 30-year bonds on the right—then the shape of the curve is a good leading indicator. The normal shape is for the curve to rise, meaning higher interest rates are paid on bonds of longer maturity. Recessions are frequently preceded by an inverted yield curve, meaning short-term interest rates are higher than long-term interest rates. Right now the curve is very normal, and the last year’s shift upward has been an almost parallel move, with little change in the relationship between short-term rates and long-term rates. I see no recession coming from tight monetary policy, at least in the usual way.

The unusual way relates to the Fed’s reduction of its holdings of long-term securities, which will push interest rates up. This is uncharted territory. As the Fed had never before engaged in massive quantitative easing, it also never unwound a past massive easing. Two considerations are in order. First, the Fed won’t be too aggressive in its unwinding. If they see their actions pushing up long-term interest rates too quickly, they will hold off on further asset sales. Worrying about time lags—that the Fed won’t see their errors soon enough to ward off recession—makes senses, but it’s not certain.

The second consideration is that long-term interest rates are determined globally, by the world’s demand for credit compared to its supply of savings. The U.S is a big part of the global financial market, but it’s not the whole thing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2017/07/19/4-non-reasons-for-recession-in-2018/#19da4731616c

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-985

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017, Part 3 of 3,  Story 1: The Tiny Timid Trump Tax Reform Resembles Liberal Democratic Party Proposals vs. Fair Tax Less Would Replace All Federal Taxes With A Single Consumption Tax On What You Buy Not What You Earn With A Generous Tax Prebate and Future Government Spending Limited To 90% of Fair Tax Less Revenues — Affordable, Effective, Efficient, Fair, Reasonable, Simple, and Transparent With Progressive Effective Rates Due To A Generous Monthly $1,000 Per Month or $12,000 Per Year Tax Prebate For All Adult American Citizens — American Friendly Not Revenue Neutral — Balanced Budgets With Real Spending Cuts and No More Budget Deficits — Booming Economy With Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs — The Time Is Now or Never For Fair Tax Less — Videos — Story 2: Secretary of Health and Human Resources Thomas Price Resigns and President Trump Accepts After Trump Outraged Over Use Expensive Private Chartered Jet Flight To Conduct Government Business — Don Wright to serve as acting secretary of the HHS — Videos —

Posted on September 30, 2017. Filed under: Addiction, Airlines, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, Comedy, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hate Speech, Health, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Pro Life, Public Relations, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Social Security, Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, U.S. Dollar, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 921, June 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 920, June 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 919, June 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 918, June 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 917, June 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 916, June 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 915, June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914, June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913, June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912, June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911, June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910, June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909, June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908, June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907, June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906, June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905, June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904, June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903, June 1, 2017

Image result for Donald Trump Plan Tax BracketsImage result for trump's tax frameworkImage result for fairtax

Image result for cartoon's trump's tax frameworkImage result for trump's tax framework

Image result for HHS secretary resigns tom price resigns

Image result for fairtax

Image result for trump's new tax plan compared with current tax system

Corporations paying fewer taxes

 

Part 3 of 3,  Story 1: The Tiny Timid Trump Tax Reform Resembles Liberal Democratic Party Proposals vs. Fair Tax Less Would Replace All Federal Taxes With A Single Consumption Tax On What You Buy Not What You Earn With A Generous Tax Prebate and Future Government Spending Limited To 90% of Fair Tax Less Revenues — Affordable, Effective, Efficient, Fair, Reasonable, Simple, and Transparent With Progressive Effective Rates Due To A Generous Monthly $1,000 Per Month or $12,000 Per Year Tax Prebate For All Adult American Citizens — American Friendly Not Revenue Neutral — Balanced Budgets With Real Spending Cuts and No More Budget Deficits — Booming Economy With Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs — The Time Is Now or Never For Fair Tax Less — Videos


The American People Want The FairTax and

The New Improved Version — Fair Tax Less

Demand Fair Tax Less From Your Elected Representatives and President Trump

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

Image result for Fair Tax Replaces


Inside the GOP’s tax blueprint

Mulvaney: Impossible to say tax benefit to rich – NEWS TODAY

Mick Mulvaney defends Trump’s Puerto Rico response, tax plan

Treasury secretary on Trump administration’s new tax plan

“IT WOULD BE LIKE HOUDINI!!!” Chuck Todd’s BRILLIANT Takedown of Trump Lackey Steven Mnuchin |News

Newt Gingrich with Martha MacCallum on Donald Trump Tax Reform Plan. #NewtGingrich #TaxReform #POTUS

LIMBAUGH: Trump’s Tax Plan Is NOT A Tax Break For The Rich

Middle Class Will ‘Get Nothing’ In Tax Proposal: Steve Rattner | Morning Joe | MSNBC

What Democrats don’t like about Trump’s tax reform plan

Milton Friedman – Why Tax Reform Is Impossible

🔴 Ep. 287: Pros and Cons of the Trump Tax Plan

Trump pitches tax reform plan to manufacturers

Sen. John Kennedy on Tax Reform

Speaker Ryan Previews Unified Framework for Tax Reform

Trump pushes first tax overhaul since President Reagan

Trump tax reform is very pro-growth: Norquist

Who wins and loses in the GOP’s proposed tax overhaul

President Trump Unveils STUNNING Tax Plan | Full Speech 9/27/17

President Donald Trump unveils his ‘middle class miracle’, a stunning tax plan with three brackets, zero tax on couples’ first $24,000 and a massive corporate rate slash. ‘The largest tax cut in American History.’ MAGA 🇺🇸

Milton Friedman – Is tax reform possible?

Ep. 287: Pros and Cons of the Trump Tax Plan

What Trump’s tax plan could mean for workers and businesses

Trump’s tax plan mirrors Ronald Reagan’s

PRESIDENT TRUMP UNVEILS SWEEPING TAX PLAN

Chuck Schumer SLAMS Trump’s New Tax Reform Plan on his Press Conference 9/27/2017

Inside Politics 09/27/17: TRUMP TAX PLAN COULD COST $5 TRILLION

Rush Limbaugh 09/27/2017 | Trump tax plan isn’t conservative, it’s populist, raises taxes on rich

Hannity: Trump’s tax plan is designed to grow the economy

Analyzing President Trump’s tax plan

Trump Unveils Tax Plan: It’s Mostly Good

Gordon Gray discusses President Trump’s tax plan details jpg

Will Trump’s tax plan deliver the goods on jobs?

What to expect from Trump’s tax plan

Trump Tax Reform Explained

David Stockman: We are heading into an absolute fiscal bloodbath

Keiser Report: America’s Falling Apart (E1123)

$20 Trillion: U.S. Debt Crisis | Peter Schiff and Stefan Molyneux

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Trump’s tax cuts won’t pay for themselves: David Stockman

Congress not likely to tackle tax reform without spending cuts?

Milton Friedman – Why Tax Reform Is Impossible

When Did America Stop Caring About Anything Critical?

When Did America Stop Caring About Anything Critical?

Revenue Neutral

Sen. McConnell to soften on revenue-neutral tax plan: Gasparino

McConnell Seeks Revenue-Neutral Tax Reform This Congress

Rand Paul’s Frustration with “Revenue Neutral” Tax Cuts!


The American People Want The FairTax 

Especially The New Improved Version — Fair Tax Less

Demand Fair Tax Less From Your Elected Representatives and President Trump

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

FairTax or Fair Tax Less — It Is Time

Bill Gates: Don’t tax my income, tax my consumption

Flat Tax vs. National Sales Tax

Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?

Freedom from the IRS! – FairTax Explained in Detail

Congressman Pence – FairTax and FlatTax

Pence on the Fair Tax

Congressman Woodall Discusses the FairTax

Rob Woodall Floor Speech: The FairTax will bring jobs back to America

Rep. Woodall Discusses FairTax with Colleagues on House Floor

The Fair Tax

Congressman King Speaks in Favor of FairTax

Rep. Woodall Discusses FairTax on House Floor

Sen. Moran Discusses FairTax Legislation on U.S. Senate Floor

Why is the FairTax better than other tax reform efforts?

AIRtax-What is It? Replaces income tax and payroll tax with sales tax

Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?

What is the FairTax legislation?

Does the FairTax protect privacy and other civil liberties?

How is the FairTax collected?

How does the FairTax affect the economy?

How does the FairTax impact interest rates?

Are any significant economies funded by a sales tax?

Is consumption a reliable source of revenue?

How will used goods be taxed?

What assumptions does the FairTax make about government spending?

Will the FairTax lead to a massive underground economy?

Can’t Americans just cross the border to avoid the FairTax

Will the FairTax drive the economy down if people stop buying?

How does the FairTax impact savings?

How does the FairTax impact the middle class?

How will the FairTax impact seniors?

How will Social Security payments be calculated under the FairTax?

How will the FairTax impact people who don’t file income taxes?

How will the FairTax help people who don’t hire an accountant?

How does the FairTax affect compliance costs?

How does the FairTax impact tax free bonds?

What will happen to cities who depend on tax free bonds?

What is the impact of the FairTax on business?

How does the FairTax impact retailers?

How does the FairTax affect tax preparers and CPAs?

Will the FairTax tax services?

Can I pretend to be a business to avoid the sales tax?

If people bring home their whole paychecks how can prices fall?

What is the Prebate?

How does the “prebate” work?

Is the FairTax truly progressive?

Wouldn’t it be more fair to exempt food and medicine from the FairTax?

How is the FairTax different from a Value Added Tax (VAT)?

Is it fair for rich people to get the same prebate as poor people?

Will the prebate create a massive new entitlement system?

How does the FairTax impact the middle class?

How do we keep exemptions and exclusions from undermining the FairTax?

How does the FairTax impact charitable giving?

Will the FairTax hurt home ownership with no mortgage interest deduction?

Will bartering present a compliance problem under the FairTax?

How does the FairTax affect illegal immigration?

How does the FairTax rate compare to today’s?

Wouldn’t it be more fair to exempt food and medicine from the FairTax?

Is education taxed under the FairTax?

Will government pay taxes under the FairTax?

How can you tax life saving medical treatment?

Will the FairTax hurt home ownership with no mortgage interest deduction?

What will the transition be like from the income tax to the FairTax?

Isn’t it a stretch to say the IRS will go away?

The Fair Tax – It’s Time

FairTax Prebate Explained

The FairTax… For a better America

Is the Fair Tax Act Fair?

Is America’s Tax System Fair?

Sen. Moran Discusses FairTax Legislation on U.S. Senate Floor

Pence on the Fair Tax

#30 The FAIRtax and President Elect Trump

Elvis Presley – It`s Now Or Never 1960

Elvis – It’s Now Or Never (O Sole Mio)

Elvis Presley – My Way (High Quality)

Frank Sinatra .My Way

Trump’s tax plan is ALREADY in trouble with his own party as plan to axe state and local tax deduction comes under fire from Republicans

  • The White House’s tax plan proposes to raise $1 trillion over 10 years by eliminating the deduction for the state and local income taxes people pay
  • That’s drawing howls of protest from Republicans whose states charge high income tax rates
  • Seven states have no income taxes, meaning their citizens wouldn’t be affected
  • But some states charge up to 13.3 per cent on top of federal taxes
  • A family in Los Angeles earning $100,000 would have to fork over roughly an additional $1,800 to Washington if the longstanding deduction goes away
  • Trump is pitching his tax plan to the National Association of Manufacturers on Friday 

As President Trump prepares to sell his tax plan to the nation’s manufacturing lobby on Friday, his best-laid tax plans have already drawn objections from some fellow Republicans who are fuming over the decision to end deductions for state and local income taxes.

The situation will pit the White House against members of Congress from states that pile high income taxes on top of what the federal government takes from paychecks.

High-income Californians, for instance, pay as much as 13.3 per cent of their income to the state in addition to their federal taxes. New Yorkers can pay up to 8.82 per cent.

Just seven U.S. states have no personal income taxes, including Texas, Florida and Nevada.

As President Trump pushes his tax plan, House Ways and Means chairman Kevin Brady (right) says he'll listen to congressmen from states that would be affected most if citizens lose deductions for state and local income taxes

As President Trump pushes his tax plan, House Ways and Means chairman Kevin Brady (right) says he’ll listen to congressmen from states that would be affected most if citizens lose deductions for state and local income taxes

State income tax rates vary widely; seven states (in gray) don't collect any, and the highest rates (dark blue) can go as high as 13.3 per cent

State income tax rates vary widely; seven states (in gray) don’t collect any, and the highest rates (dark blue) can go as high as 13.3 per cent

Under the Trump tax reform plan, a family earning $100,000 in Los Angeles pays about $6,000 in state and local income taxes. Losing the ability to deduct that expense would cost the hypothetical taxpayers around $1,800.

The GOP is working on a way to pacify legislators whose constituents would wind up paying more.

‘The members with concerns from high-tax states have to be accommodated,’ Illinois Republican Rep. Peter Roskam told The Wall Street Journal. Roskam is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

‘So, you can imagine a soft landing on this that creative people are putting much time and energy into.’

The White House has shown no sign that it’s willing to budge on eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes since it would bring in about $1 trillion over a 10-year period.

With the prospect of persuading Democrats to go along with a new tax play already slim, the GOP will need every Republican vote it can get.

The Journal reports that the nine states whose citizens use the deduction, measured as a percentage of income, are represented by 33 House Republicans.

If Republicans lose more than 22 votes, Trump’s tax plan is effective dead.

Ways and Means member Peter Roskam, and Illinois Republican, says tax code-writers are finding a 'soft landing' for states that pay the most income tax to their local governments

Ways and Means member Peter Roskam, and Illinois Republican, says tax code-writers are finding a ‘soft landing’ for states that pay the most income tax to their local governments

White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn briefed the press at the White House on Thursday but wouldn't promise that every middle-class U.S. family would get a tax cut

White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn briefed the press at the White House on Thursday but wouldn’t promise that every middle-class U.S. family would get a tax cut

APRIL 13, 2016

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?

Corporations paying fewer taxes

Tax-deadline season isn’t many people’s favorite time of the year, but most Americans are OK with the amount of tax they pay. It’s what other people pay, or don’t pay, that bothers them.

Just over half (54%) of Americans surveyed in fall by Pew Research Center said they pay about the right amount in taxes considering what they get from the federal government, versus 40% who said they pay more than their fair share. But in a separate 2015 surveyby the Center, some six-in-ten Americans said they were bothered a lot by the feeling that “some wealthy people” and “some corporations” don’t pay their fair share.

It’s true that corporations are funding a smaller share of overall government operations than they used to. In fiscal 2015, the federal government collected $343.8 billion from corporate income taxes, or 10.6% of its total revenue. Back in the 1950s, corporate income tax generated between a quarter and a third of federal revenues (though payroll taxes have grown considerably over that period).

Nor have corporate tax receipts kept pace with the overall growth of the U.S. economy. Inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has risen 153% since 1980, while inflation-adjusted corporate tax receipts were 115% higher in fiscal 2015 than in fiscal 1980, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. There have been a lot of ups and downs over that period, as corporate tax receipts tend to rise during expansions and drop off in recessions. In fiscal 2007, for instance, corporate taxes hit $370.2 billion (in current dollars), only to plunge to $138.2 billion in 2009 as businesses felt the impact of the Great Recession.

Corporations also employ battalions of tax lawyers to find ways to reduce their tax bills, from running income through subsidiaries in low-tax foreign countries to moving overseas entirely, in what’s known as a corporate inversion (a practice the Treasury Department has moved to discourage).

But in Tax Land, the line between corporations and people can be fuzzy. While most major corporations (“C corporations” in tax lingo) pay according to the corporate tax laws, many other kinds of businesses – sole proprietorships, partnerships and closely held “S corporations” – fall under the individual income tax code, because their profits and losses are passed through to individuals. And by design, wealthier Americans pay most of the nation’s total individual income taxes.

Wealthy pay more in taxes than poorIn 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed, according to our analysis of preliminary IRS data. Their average tax rate (total taxes paid divided by cumulative AGI) was 25.7%. By contrast, people with incomes of less than $50,000 accounted for 62.3% of all individual returns filed, but they paid just 5.7% of total taxes. Their average tax rate was 4.3%.

The relative tax burdens borne by different income groups changes over time, due both to economic conditions and the constantly shifting provisions of tax law. For example, using more comprehensive IRS data covering tax years 2000 through 2011, we found that people who made between $100,000 and $200,000 paid 23.8% of the total tax liability in 2011, up from 18.8% in 2000. Filers in the $50,000-to-$75,000 group, on the other hand, paid 12% of the total liability in 2000 but only 9.1% in 2011. (The tax liability figures include a few taxes, such as self-employment tax and the “nanny tax,” that people typically pay along with their income taxes.)

All told, individual income taxes accounted for a little less than half (47.4%) of government revenue, a share that’s been roughly constant since World War II. The federal government collected $1.54 trillion from individual income taxes in fiscal 2015, making it the national government’s single-biggest revenue source. (Other sources of federal revenue include corporate income taxes, the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, excise taxes such as those on gasoline and cigarettes, estate taxes, customs duties and payments from the Federal Reserve.) Until the 1940s, when the income tax was expanded to help fund the war effort, generally only the very wealthy paid it.

Since the 1970s, the segment of federal revenues that has grown the most is the payroll tax – those line items on your pay stub that go to pay for Social Security and Medicare. For most people, in fact, payroll taxes take a bigger bite out of their paycheck than federal income tax. Why? The 6.2% Social Security withholding tax only applies to wages up to $118,500. For example, a worker earning $40,000 will pay $2,480 (6.2%) in Social Security tax, but an executive earning $400,000 will pay $7,347 (6.2% of $118,500), for an effective rate of just 1.8%. By contrast, the 1.45% Medicare tax has no upper limit, and in fact high earners pay an extra 0.9%.

All but the top-earning 20% of American families pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes, according to a Treasury Department analysis.

Still, that analysis confirms that, after all federal taxes are factored in, the U.S. tax system as a whole is progressive. The top 0.1% of families pay the equivalent of 39.2% and the bottom 20% have negative tax rates (that is, they get more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes).

Of course, people can and will differ on whether any of this constitutes a “fair” tax system. Depending on their politics and personal situations, some would argue for a more steeply progressive structure, others for a flatter one. Finding the right balance can be challenging to the point of impossibility: As Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV’s finance minister, is said to have remarked: “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”

Note: This is an update of an earlier post published March 24, 2015.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

Distrust of Senate grows within GOP

A day after the GOP presented a united front around the rollout of President Trump’s tax plan, House Republicans are expressing deep reservations about the Senate’s ability to get the job done.

Lawmakers stung over the failure to pass ObamaCare repeal worry the same fate could befall the tax measure if a handful of senators raise objections.

Donald Trump won with an electoral landside and his three big campaign points were ObamaCare repeal, tax reform and border security. For a handful of senators to derail that agenda is very frustrating,” said Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas).

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who is close to the House GOP leadership, says colleagues are frustrated with a handful of senators “overruling the will of the entire House.”

“We do need to see them step up and actually deliver for a change. We have over 200 bills sitting stalled over there. They haven’t been able to deliver on [health care] reform and they all ran on it and now we have a do-or-die moment on tax reform,” he said.

There’s also a sense among House Republicans that their Senate brethren aren’t under the same pressure to get results — perhaps because the GOP’s majority in the Senate is seen as safer in the 2018 midterm elections than the House majority.

“They put our majority in jeopardy with their failure on health care, more than they did their own,” Cole said.

While Republicans have a bigger majority in the House than in the Senate, the political map favors the Senate GOP in 2018.

Republicans only have to defend nine seats next year, and only one — held by Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) — is in a state won by 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Democrats are defending more than 20 seats, including 10 in states won by Trump.

In the House, Republicans represent 23 districts carried by Clinton, just shy of what Democrats would need to win to take back the majority.

Republicans are excited about moving to tax reform, and Trump’s plan received enthusiastic support at a half-day private retreat the House GOP held Wednesday to review it.

The president’s proposals to eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax received ovations.

But the mood turned more somber when Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-Maine) stood up to ask if the Senate could be counted on to pass tax legislation, according to people familiar with the meeting.

A spokesman for Poliquin did not respond to a request for comment.

“A lot of House members trust a lot of senators to introduce their own tax reform bills,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), alluding to how senators seek to show independence by offering their own bills.

House Republicans say they can easily see GOP Sens. Susan Collins(Maine), John McCain (Ariz.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who all voted against a slimmed-down ObamaCare repeal bill in July, bucking the leadership again.SPONSORED BY NEXT ADVISOR

“I do not understand what motivates John McCain,” King said. “I don’t know what goes on in the minds of folks from Maine.”

Earlier this year, in an illustration of the frustration House Republicans hold for the Senate hold-outs, Farenthold joked about challenging Collins to a duel. He later apologized.

McCain later told The Hill that the health-care bill was doomed because it’s virtually impossible to tackle something as huge as reform as health care on a partisan basis.

“If you’re going to pass a major reform, you got to have bipartisan support,” he said.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is making the case that Senate Republicans are more likely to come through on tax reform because McConnell and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) have already negotiated a tax reform framework with the administration and House leaders.

“What we did differently in this go around is we spent the last four months basically working together, the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee and the White House, making sure that we’re on the same page,” Ryan told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Thursday morning.

Ryan explained that leaders made sure they did “the hard lifting, the tough work ahead of schedule, ahead of rollout.”

But he also acknowledged that House Republicans have just about run out of patience with the Senate after the collapse of health care reform this week.

“We’re really frustrated. Look, we passed 373 bills here in the House — 270-some are still in the Senate,” he said.

Already there are doubts that Senate Republicans will stick to the plan on taxes.

Hatch, who heads the Senate’s tax writing panel, told reporters Thursday afternoon that he would like to keep in place the deduction for state and local taxes, which the administration wants to eliminate to provide revenue for lower rates.

A spokeswoman for the Finance Committee said, “Chairman Hatch recognizes that every major provision within the tax code has an important constituency and consequence.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/352999-distrust-of-senate-grows-within-gop

Key Findings

  • This year, Tax Freedom Day falls on April 23rd, 113 days into the year.
  • Tax Freedom Day is a significant date for taxpayers and lawmakers because it represents how long Americans as a whole have to work in order to pay the nation’s tax burden.
  • Americans will pay $3.5 trillion in federal taxes and $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total bill of more than $5.1 trillion, or 31 percent of the nation’s income.
  • Americans will collectively spend more on taxes in 2017 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined.
  • If you include annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owed, Tax Freedom Day would occur 14 days later, on May 7.

What Is Tax Freedom Day?

Tax Freedom Day® is the day when the nation as a whole has earned enough money to pay its total tax bill for the year. Tax Freedom Day takes all federal, state, and local taxes—individual as well as payroll, sales and excise, corporate and property taxes—and divides them by the nation’s income. In 2017, Americans will pay $3.5 trillion in federal taxes and $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total tax bill of $5.1 trillion, or 31 percent of national income. This year, Tax Freedom Day falls on April 23, 113 days into the year.

What Taxes Do We Pay?

This year, Americans will work the longest—46 days—to pay federal, state, and local individual income taxes. Payroll taxes will take 26 days to pay, followed by sales and excise taxes (15 days), corporate income taxes (10 days), and property taxes (10 days). The remaining six days are spent paying estate and inheritance taxes, customs duties, and other taxes.

When Is Tax Freedom Day if You Include Federal Borrowing?

Since 2002, federal expenses have surpassed federal revenues, with the budget deficit exceeding $1 trillion annually from 2009 to 2012. In calendar year 2017, the deficit is expected to shrink slightly, from $657 billion to $612 billion. If we include this annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owed, Tax Freedom Day would occur on May 7, 14 days later. The latest ever deficit-inclusive Tax Freedom Day occurred during World War II, on May 25, 1945.

When Is My State’s Tax Freedom Day?

The total tax burden borne by residents across states varies considerably due to differing tax policies and the progressivity of the federal tax system. This means that states with higher incomes and higher taxes celebrate Tax Freedom Day later: Connecticut (May 21), New Jersey (May 13), and New York (May 11). Residents of Mississippi bear the lowest average tax burden in 2017, with their Tax Freedom Day having arrived on April 5. Also early were Tennessee (April 7) and South Dakota (April 8).

2017 Tax Freedom Day - State Dates

How Has Tax Freedom Day Changed over Time?

The latest ever Tax Freedom Day was May 1, 2000; in that year, Americans paid 33 percent of their total income in taxes. A century earlier, in 1900, Americans paid only 5.9 percent of their income in taxes, so that Tax Freedom Day came on January 22.

Tax Freedom Day Over Time

Methodology

In the denominator, we count every dollar that is officially part of net national income according to the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the numerator, we count every payment to the government that is officially considered a tax. Taxes at all levels of government—federal, state, and local—are included in the calculation. In calculating Tax Freedom Day for each state, we look at taxes borne by residents of that state, whether paid to the federal government, their own state or local governments, or governments of other states. Where possible, we allocate tax burdens to each taxpayer’s state of residence. Leap days are excluded, to allow comparison across years, and any fraction of a day is rounded up to the next calendar day

https://taxfoundation.org/publications/tax-freedom-day/

Feds Collect Record Taxes Through August; Still Run $673.7B Deficit

By Terence P. Jeffrey | September 13, 2017 | 4:28 PM EDT

(CNSNews.com) – The federal government collected record total tax revenues through the first eleven months of fiscal 2017 (Oct. 1, 2016 through the end of August), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.

Through August, the federal government collected approximately $2,966,172,000,000 in total tax revenues.

That was $8,450,680,000 more (in constant 2017 dollars) than the previous record of $2,957,721,320,000 in total tax revenues (in 2017 dollars) that the federal government collected in the first eleven months of fiscal 2016.

At the same time that the federal government was collecting a record $2,966,172,000,000 in tax revenues, it was spending $3,639,882,000,000—and, thus, running a deficit of $673,711,000,000.

Individual income taxes have provided the largest share (47.9 percent) of federal revenues so far this fiscal year. From Oct. 1 through the end of August, the Treasury collected $1,421,997,000,000 in individual income taxes.

Payroll taxes provided the second largest share (35.9 percent), with the Treasury collecting $1,065,751,000,000 in these taxes.

The $233,631 in corporate income taxes collected in the first eleven months of fiscal 2017 equaled only 8.6 percent of total tax collections.

The $21,172,000,000 collected in estate and gift taxes equaled only 0.71 percent of total taxes collected this fiscal year.

(Tax revenues were adjusted to constant 2017 using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.)

The Latest: State legislatures ‘dismayed’ by GOP tax plan

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on the Republican plan to overhaul the tax code (all times local):

4:40 p.m.

An organization that advocates for state legislatures says it’s “dismayed” the Republican tax cut proposal unveiled Wednesday would do away with a deduction for state and local taxes paid.

The National Conference of State Legislatures says the deduction has existed in the federal tax code since its inception. The group says “tens of millions of middle-class taxpayers of every political affiliation” would experience a greater tax burden if the deduction were eliminated.

The group says the deduction’s elimination will also impede states in their efforts to invest in education and other public services.

About a third of tax filers itemize deductions on their federal income tax returns. The Tax Policy Center says virtually all who do claim a deduction for state and local taxes paid.

___

4:10 p.m.

President Donald Trump is issuing a warning shot to Indiana’s Democratic senator: Support my tax overhaul or I’ll campaign against you next year.

Trump says at a tax event in Indiana that if Sen. Joe Donnelly doesn’t approve the plan, “we will come here and we will campaign against him like you wouldn’t believe.”

But Trump is predicting that numerous Democrats will come across the aisle and support his plan “because it’s the right thing to do.”

The president has made overtures to Democratic senators like Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota in recent weeks. All three are facing re-election in 2018.

___

4 p.m.

Small business advocates are split over the draft of the new Republican tax plan.

The National Federation of Independent Business is praising the proposal to tax business income at 20 percent — including sole proprietors whose business income is taxed at individual rates up to 39.6 percent.

The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council says the plan would simplify business taxes, encourage business investment and increase owners’ confidence.

But the Small Business Majority says the plan wouldn’t help most small companies, and the current top rate is paid by less than 2 percent of those businesses.

And John O’Neill, a tax analyst at the American Sustainable Business Council, says tax reform isn’t as useful to the economy as investing in infrastructure and education.

President Donald Trump is calling the current tax system a “relic” and a “colossal barrier” that’s standing in the way of the nation’s economic comeback.

Trump says at an event in Indianapolis that his tax proposal will help middle-class families save money and will eliminate loopholes that benefit the wealthy.

Trump says the wealthy “can call me all they want. It’s not going to help.” The billionaire president says he’s “doing the right thing. And it’s not good for me, believe me.”

The president says under his plan, “the vast majority of families will be able to file their taxes on a single sheet of paper.”

__

3:40 p.m.

President Donald Trump is making the case for a sweeping plan to overhaul the tax system for individuals and corporations. He calls it a “once in a generation” opportunity to cut taxes.

The president says in Indiana that he wants to cut taxes for middle-class families to make the system simpler and fairer.

Trump says his tax plan will “bring back the jobs and the wealth that have left our country.” He says it’s time for the nation to fight for American workers.

He’s praising his vice president, Mike Pence, Indiana’s former governor. Trump says, “it’s time for Washington to learn from the wisdom of Indiana.”

__

2:52 p.m.

A budget watchdog group in Washington says the new GOP tax plan could cost $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget admits its estimate is very preliminary since so many details are unclear, but its take is that the plan contains about $5.8 trillion in tax cuts but only $3.6 trillion worth of offsetting tax increases. That $2.2 trillion would be added to the nation’s $20 trillion debt.

That’s more than the $1.5 trillion debt cost that has emerged in a deal among Senate Republicans.

Republicans controlling Congress initially promised that the overhaul of the tax code wouldn’t add to the debt. The group also notes that the $2.2 trillion cost could grow by another $500 billion when interest costs are added in.

_____

1:54 p.m.

President Donald Trump says he’s always wanted to reduce the corporate tax rate to 20 percent — even though he said repeatedly he wanted to see it lowered to 15 percent.

Trump told reporters as he departed Washington for Indiana on Wednesday afternoon that a 20 percent rate was his “red line” and that it had always been his goal.

“In fact, I wanted to start at 15 so that we got 20,” he said, adding: “20′s my number.”

Trump also denies the plan unveiled by the White House and congressional Republicans Wednesday would benefit the wealthy.

He says: “I think there’s very little benefit for people of wealth.”

Under the plan, corporations would see their top tax rate cut from 35 percent to 20 percent.

____

1:37 p.m.

A vocal group of the most conservative House Republicans has come out in support of a draft tax plan endorsed by both President Donald Trump and top congressional GOP leaders.

The House Freedom Caucus endorsement is noteworthy because it could ease House passage of a budget plan that’s the first step to advancing the tax cut measure through Congress.

The group says the outline will allow workers to “keep more of their money,” while simplifying the loophole-choked tax code and making U.S. companies more competitive with their foreign rivals.

The group had held up action on the budget measure as they demanded more details on taxes.

_____

11:21 a.m.

President Donald Trump has two red lines that he refuses to cross on overhauling taxes: the corporate rate must be cut to 20 percent and the savings must go to the middle class.

Gary Cohn, the president’s top economics aide, says any overhaul signed by the president needs to include these two elements.

Trump had initially pushed for cutting the 39.6 percent corporate tax rate to 15 percent.

The administration says that the benefits of any tax cut will not favor the wealthy, with Cohn saying that an additional tax bracket could be added to levy taxes on the top one percent of earners if needed.

_____

11:20 a.m.

The Senate’s top Democrat is blasting a new tax cut plan backed by President Donald Trump as a giveaway to the rich.

Sen. Chuck Schumer says Trump’s plan only gives “crumbs” to the middle class, while top-bracket earners making more than a half-million dollars a year would reap a windfall.

The New York Democrat also blasted the plan for actually increasing the bottom tax rate from 10 percent to 12 percent, calling it a “punch to the gut of working Americans.”

Schumer said the plan is little more than an “across-the-board tax cut for America’s millionaires and billionaires.”

The plan, to be officially released Wednesday afternoon, is the top item on Washington’s agenda after the GOP failure to repeal the Obama health care law.

_____

9:53 a.m.

A new Republican blueprint for overhauling the U.S. tax code employs the themes of economic populism that President Donald Trump trumpeted during the presidential campaign to win support from working-class voters.

A copy of the plan to be released later Wednesday says, “Too many in our country are shut out of the dynamism of the U.S. economy.” That’s led to what the plans says is “the justifiable feeling that the system is rigged against hardworking Americans.”

The plan, obtained by The Associated Press, says the Trump administration and Congress “will work together to produce tax reform that will put America first.”

The GOP plan for the first major rewrite of the U.S. tax code in 30 years also says corporations will be stopped from shipping jobs and capital overseas.

_____

9:20 a.m.

President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are proposing a tax plan that they say will be simple and fair.

In a document obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday, they outline a blueprint for almost doubling the standard deduction for married taxpayers filing jointly to $24,000, and $12,000 for individuals.

The plan calls for cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. The GOP proposal also calls for reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to three with a surcharge on the wealthiest Americans.

The plan also leaves intact the deduction for mortgage interest and charitable deductions.

The White House and Republicans plan a formal roll out later Wednesday.

__

4:26 a.m.

President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are rolling out a sweeping plan to cut taxes for individuals and corporations, simplify the tax system, and likely double the standard deduction used by most Americans.

Months in the making, the plan meets a political imperative for Republicans to deliver an overhaul of the U.S. tax code after the failure of the health care repeal.

The public reveal of the plan was set for Wednesday. The day before, details emerged on Capitol Hill while Trump personally appealed to House Republicans and Democrats at the White House to get behind his proposal.

https://apnews.com/f609602269d54524aa14e1d9c74ec97c

 

President Trump spoke about his administration’s tax reform plan in Indianapolis on Wednesday.CreditTom Brenner/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The tax plan that the Trump administration outlined on Wednesday is a potentially huge windfall for the wealthiest Americans. It would not directly benefit the bottom third of the population. As for the middle class, the benefits appear to be modest.

The administration and its congressional allies are proposing to sharply reduce taxation of business income, primarily benefiting the small share of the population that owns the vast majority of corporate equity. President Trump said on Wednesday that the cuts would increase investment and spur growth, creating broader prosperity. But experts say the upside is limited, not least because the economy is already expanding.

The plan would also benefit Mr. Trump and other affluent Americans by eliminating the estate tax, which affects just a few thousand uber-wealthy families each year, and the alternative minimum tax, a safety net designed to prevent tax avoidance.

The precise impact on Mr. Trump cannot be ascertained because the president refuses to release his tax returns, but the few snippets of returns that have become public show one thing clearly: The alternative minimum tax has been unkind to Mr. Trump. In 2005, it forced him to pay $31 million in additional taxes.

Mr. Trump has also pledged repeatedly that the plan would reduce the taxes paid by middle-class families, but he has not provided enough details to evaluate that claim. While some households would probably get tax cuts, others could end up paying more.

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-10/html/container.html

The plan would not benefit lower-income households that do not pay federal income taxes. The president is not proposing measures like a reduction in payroll taxes, which are paid by a much larger share of workers, nor an increase in the earned-income tax credit, which would expand wage support for the working poor.

Indeed, to call the plan “tax reform” seems like a stretch — Mr. Trump himself told conservative and evangelical leaders on Monday that it was more apt to refer to his plan as “tax cuts.” Mr. Trump’s proposal echoes the large tax cuts that President Ronald Reagan, in 1981, and President George W. Bush, in 2001, passed in the first year of their terms, not the 1986 overhaul of the tax code that he often cites. Like his Republican predecessors, Mr. Trump says cutting taxes will increase economic growth.

Photo

The public portion of the debt equaled 24 percent of the gross domestic product in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan signed a tax cut at his vacation home near Santa Barbara, Calif. In June of this year, the debt equaled 75 percent of economic output. CreditAssociated Press

“It’s time to take care of our people, to rebuild our nation and to fight for our great American workers,” Mr. Trump told a crowd in Indianapolis.

But the moment is very different. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush cut taxes during recessions. Mr. Trump is proposing to cut taxes during one of the longest economic expansions in American history. It is not clear that the economy can grow much faster; the Federal Reserve has warned that it will seek to offset any stimulus by raising interest rates.

At the time of the earlier cuts, the federal debt was considerably smaller. The public portion of the debt equaled 24 percent of the gross domestic product in 1981, and 31 percent in 2001. In June, the debt equaled 75 percent of economic output.

The Trump administration insists that its tax cut will catalyze such an economic boom that money will flow into the federal coffers and the debt will not rise. The Reagan and Bush administrations made similar claims. The debt soared in both instances.

Another issue: Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan proposed to cut taxes when federal revenues had climbed unusually high as a share of the national economy.

Mr. Trump wants to cut taxes while revenues are close to an average level.

Since 1981, federal revenue has averaged 17.1 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, while federal spending has averaged 20.3 percent.

Last year’s numbers were close to the long-term trend: Federal revenue was 17.5 percent of gross domestic product; spending was 20.7 percent.

Martin Feldstein, a Harvard University economics professor and a longtime adviser to Republican presidents, said that the moment was not perfect, but that Mr. Trump should nevertheless press ahead because the changes would be valuable.

“The debt is moving in the wrong direction,” Mr. Feldstein said. “But the tax reform is moving in the right direction.”

Proponents of the plan assert that the largest benefits are indirect. In particular, they argue that cutting corporate taxes will unleash economic growth.

Mr. Trump’s plan is more focused on business tax cuts than the Reagan and Bush plans, and economists agree that this makes economic gains more likely.

The key elements are large reductions in the tax rates for business income: To 20 percent for corporations, and to 25 percent for “pass-through” businesses, a broad category that includes everything from mom-and-pop neighborhood shops to giant investment partnerships, law firms — and real estate developers.

The plan also lets businesses immediately deduct the full cost of new investments.

“You’re going to get a boost in investment,” said William Gale, co-director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “It’s hard to argue that there won’t be a positive effect.”

But Mr. Gale added that there are reasons to think it would be modest.

The most important is that the economy is already growing at a faster pace than the Fed considers sustainable. “Economy roaring,” Mr. Trump tweeted on Wednesday.

Photo

After President George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts, the wealthiest Americans paid 34.7 percent of their income in taxes, while Americans in the middle income brackets paid 16.1 percent. CreditRon Edmonds/Associated Press

Also, interest rates are low, and nonfinancial companies are sitting on $1.84 trillion that they don’t want to spend. “It’s not lack of funds that’s stopping companies from investing,” Mr. Gale said.

And the stimulus would come at the cost of increased federal borrowing. Interest rates might not rise if foreigners provide the necessary money, as happened in the 1980s and the 2000s, but that means some of the benefits also end up abroad.

It’s a venerable principle that lower tax rates encourage corporate investment. But a study of a 2003 cut in the tax rate on corporate dividendsfound no discernible impact on investment. The finding would not have surprised Mr. Bush’s Treasury secretary at the time, Paul O’Neill, who was fired for opposing the plan. “You find somebody who says, ‘I do more R & D because I get a tax credit for it,’ you’ll find a fool,” Mr. O’Neill, a former Alcoa chairman, said at the time.

Mr. Trump’s plan also continues a long-term march away from progressive taxation. The federal income tax is the centerpiece of a longstanding bipartisan consensus that wealthy Americans should pay an outsize share of the cost of government.

But successive rounds of tax cuts have eroded that premise, according to research by the economists Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley. In 1980, the wealthiest Americans paid 59 percent of their income in taxes while the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 24.5 percent. After the Bush tax cuts, the wealthiest Americans paid 34.7 percent of their income in taxes, while Americans in the middle income brackets paid 16.1 percent.

Under President Barack Obama, Congress increased taxation of upper-income households. Mr. Trump is seeking to resume the long-term trend toward flattening the curve. Upper-income households would get large tax cuts; lower-income households would get none.

The exact impact on the middle class is not yet clear. The outline released Wednesday proposes new tax brackets but does not specify income thresholds. It also proposes to replace the current tax deduction for each dependent with a child tax credit — but the administration did not propose a dollar amount for that new credit.

 

The administration said Wednesday that it was committed “to ensure that the reformed tax code is at least as progressive as the existing tax code.” That language, however, applies only to personal income taxes. The proposed reduction of business taxes and the elimination of the estate tax would both disproportionately benefit wealthy Americans.

“I don’t think there’s any way to justify this as a progressive proposal,” said Lily Batchelder, a law professor at New York University who served as deputy director of Mr. Obama’s National Economic Council. “In broad brush strokes, they’re doing nothing for the bottom 35 percent, they’re doing very little and possibly raising taxes on the middle class, and they’ve specified tax cuts for the wealthy.”

 

Tax reform: Trump, GOP mull surcharge on wealthy, doubling standard deduction

President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with members of the House Ways and Means committee in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)(<cite>Evan Vucci</cite>)
President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with members of the House Ways and Means committee in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)(Evan Vucci)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are considering an income tax surcharge on the wealthy and doubling the standard deduction given to most Americans, with the GOP under pressure to overhaul the tax code after the collapse of the health care repeal.

On the eve of the grand rollout of the plan, details emerged on Capitol Hill on Tuesday while Trump personally appealed to House Republicans and Democrats at the White House to get behind his proposal.

“We will cut taxes tremendously for the middle class. Not just a little bit but tremendously,” Trump said as he met with members of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. He predicted jobs “will be coming back in because we have a non-competitive tax structure right now and we’re going to go super competitive.”

Among the details: repeal of the tax on multimillion-dollar estates, a reduction in the corporate rate from 35 percent to 20 percent and potentially four tax brackets, down from the current seven. The current top rate for individuals, those earning more than $418,000 a year, is 39.6 percent.

The goal is a more simple tax code that would spur economic growth and make U.S. companies more competitive. Delivering on the top legislative goal will be crucial for Republicans intent on holding onto their majorities in next year’s midterm elections.

The tax overhaul plan assembled by the White House and GOP leaders, which would slash the rate for corporations, aims at the first major revamp of the tax system in three decades. It would deliver a major Trump campaign pledge.

The outlines of the plan were described by GOP officials who demanded anonymity to disclose private deliberations.

The plan would likely cut the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. A new surcharge on wealthy taxpayers might soften the appearance of the wealthiest Americans and big corporations benefiting from generous tax cuts.

Republicans already were picking at the framework, pointing up how divisions within GOP ranks can complicate efforts to overhaul taxes as has happened with the series of moves to repeal the Obama health care law.

Details of the proposal crafted behind closed doors over months by top White House economic officials, GOP congressional leaders and the Republican heads of tax-writing panels in the House and Senate were set to be released Wednesday. Trump and the Republicans were putting the final touches on the plan when the Democrats were brought in. A senior Democrat saw it as the opening of negotiations.

Trump had previously said he wanted a 15 percent rate for corporations, but House Speaker Paul Ryan has called that impractically low and has said it would risk adding to the soaring $20 trillion national debt.

Trump said Tuesday some of the components included doubling the standard deduction used by families and increasing the child tax credit. He said the majority of Americans would be able to file their taxes on a single page. “We must make our tax code simple and fair. It’s too complicated,” Trump said.

Some conservative GOP lawmakers, meanwhile, dug their heels in on the shape of the plan.

Rep. Mark Meadows, head of the House Freedom Caucus, said he’d vote against tax legislation if it provided for a corporate tax rate over 20 percent, a rate for small businesses higher than 25 percent, or if it fails to call for a doubling of the standard deduction.

“That’s the red line for me,” Meadows said at a forum of conservative lawmakers. He noted he was speaking personally, not as head of the conservative grouping.

Disgruntlement came from Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., over the process of putting together the plan.

“I get that we want to move to 3 percent but I’d like to know how,” Kennedy said referring to Trump’s ambitious goal of annual growth in the economy through tax cuts. “I’m not much into all the secrecy,” he said. “We need to do this by November, and at the rate we’re going I’m not encouraged right now.”

The Democrats, while acknowledging the tax system should be simplified, have insisted that any tax relief should go to the middle class, not the wealthiest. Tax cuts shouldn’t add to the ballooning debt, the Democrats say.

Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, came away from the White House meeting in a negotiating mood. “This is when the process gets kicked off,” Neal told reporters at the Capitol.

The rate for wealthiest taxpayers shouldn’t be reduced, he said. Democrats are concerned by indications from Trump and his officials that “they intend to offer tax relief to people at the top,” he said.

Still, there may be room to negotiate over the Republicans’ insistence on repealing the estate tax, Neal indicated, since “there are other things you can do with it” to revise it short of complete elimination.

http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/09/tax_reform_trump_gop_mull_surcharge_on_wealthy_doubling_standard_deduction.html

9 ways Trump’s tax plan is a gift to the rich, including himself

President Trump and congressional Republicans keep saying their tax plan doesn’t help the rich. But that’s not true.

The nine-page outline released Wednesday is full of goodies that will make millionaires and billionaires happy. Republicans say it’s a starting point, but it would have to be turned on its head to be anything other than a windfall for the wealthy. In fact, in nine pages, The Washington Post counts at least nine ways the wealthy benefit, including Trump himself. Here’s our list:

1) A straight-up tax cut for the rich. The top tax rate in the United States is 39.6 percent. Trump and GOP leaders propose lowering that to 35 percent. It’s also worth noting the 39.6 percent tax rate applies only to income above $418,400 for singles and $470,700 for married couples. The outline doesn’t specify what income level the new 35 percent rate would kick in at. It’s possible the rich will get an every bigger tax cut if the final plan raises that threshold.

2) The estate tax goes bye-bye. Trump likes to call the estate tax the “death tax.” At the moment, Americans who pass money, homes or other assets on to heirs when they die pay a 40 percent tax. But here’s the important part Trump leaves out: The only people who have to pay this tax are those passing on more than $5.49 million. (And a married couple can inherit nearly $11 million without paying the tax.)

September 28 at 12:45 PM

Trump frequently claims the estate tax hurts farmers and small-business owners. But as The Post’s Fact Checker team points out, only 5,500 estates will pay any estate tax at all in 2017 (out of about 3 million estates). And of those 5,500 hit with the tax, only 80 (yes, you read that right) are farms or small businesses.

3) Hedge funds and lawyers get a special tax break. The plan calls for the tax rate on “pass-through entities” to fall from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. Republicans claim this is a tax break for small-business owners because “pass-through entities” is an umbrella term that covers the ways most people set up businesses: sole proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations. But the reality is, most small-business owners (more than 85 percent) already pay a tax rate of 25 percent or less, according to the Brookings Institution.

Only 3 percent pay a rate greater than 30 percent. That 3 percent includes doctors, lawyers, hedge fund managers and other really well-off people. Instead of paying a 35 percent income tax, these rich business owners would be able to pass off their income as business income and pay only a 25 percent tax rate. (The tax outline released Wednesday “contemplates” that Congress “will adopt measures to prevent” this kind of tax dodging. But there’s no guarantee that will happen).

4) The AMT is over. Republicans want to kill the alternative minimum tax, a measure put in place in 1969 to ensure the wealthy aren’t using a bunch of loopholes and credits to lower their tax bills to paltry sums. The AMT starts to phase in for people with earnings of about $130,000, but the vast majority of people subject to the AMT earn over $500,000, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Trump himself would benefit from repealing the AMT. As The Post’s Fact Checker team notes, Trump’s leaked tax return from 2005 shows that the AMT increased his tax bill from about $5.3 million to $36.5 million. In 2005 alone, he potentially could have saved $31 million.

5) The wealthy get to keep deducting mortgage interest. Only about 1 in 4 taxpayers claims the mortgage interest deduction, the Brookings Institution says. “Upper-income households primarily benefit from the subsidy,” wrote Brookings scholar Bruce Katz in a report last year. In fact, the wealthy can deduct interest payments on mortgages worth up to $1 million. There have been many calls over the years to lower that threshold, but the Trump tax plan is keeping it in place.

The GOP is doing this even though the tax cuts would add to the United States’ debt, since it doesn’t raise enough revenue to offset all the money lost from the new tax breaks. The outline also calls for the charitable deduction to stay, another deduction used heavily by the top 1 percent.

6) Stockholders are going to be very happy. Trump is calling for a super-low tax rate on the money big businesses such as Apple and Microsoft bring back to the United States from overseas, a process known as “repatriation.” Trump argues companies will use all this money coming home to build new U.S. factories. But the last time the United States did this, in the early 2000s, it ended up being a big win for people who own stocks. Companies simply took most of the money and gave it to shareholders in the form of dividends and share buybacks.

Guess what? Just about everyone (outside the White House) predicts the same thing will happen again. Corporations are even admitting it.

7) The favorite tax break of hedge fund billionaires is still safe. There’s no mention in the tax-overhaul rubric of “carried interest.” Those two words make most people’s eyes glaze over, but they are a well-known tax-dodging trick for millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street. Hedge fund and private-equity managers earn most of their money from their investments doing well. But instead of paying income taxes on all that money at a rate of 39.6 percent, the managers are able to claim it as “carried interest” so they can pay tax at the low capital gains rate of 20 percent.

Trump called this totally unfair on the campaign trail. During the primaries, he said he would eliminate this loophole because hedge fund managers were “getting away with murder.” But that change didn’t end up in the GOP plan.

8) Capital gains taxes stay low. The nine-page document also says nothing about capital gains, the tax rate people pay when they finally sell a stock or asset after holding on to it for many years. At the moment, the wealthiest Americans pay a 20 percent capital gains rate. Trump and Republican leaders aren’t proposing any changes to that, even though it is a popular way for millionaires to lower their tax bill.

9) The Obamacare investment tax goes away. The Affordable Care Act put in place a 3.8 percent surcharge on investment income (known formally as the Net Investment Income Tax). It applies only to individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and married couples earning more than $250,000. There’s no mention of this tax in the outline released this week, but Republicans clearly want to get rid of it. Repealing it was part of the GOP health-care bills that failed to pass Congress in recent weeks. One way or another, Republicans are likely to roll back this tax.

When reporters asked Trump whether the tax plan would help him personally, he quickly said no.

“No, I don’t benefit. I don’t benefit,” Trump said. “In fact, very, very strongly, as you see, I think there’s very little benefit for people of wealth.”

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), who was part of the team that worked with the White House to craft the tax-overhaul outline, was asked a similar question on Fox News. He, too, said this plan does little to help the rich.

“I think those who benefit most are middle-class families struggling to keep every dollar they earn,” Brady told Fox News.

But one look at this plan tells a very different story. It gives an outright tax cut to the wealthiest Americans and it preserves almost all of the most popular loopholes they use to reduce their tax bills.

Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), a strong proponent of tax cuts, was more straightforward this week. He told reporters, “This is a supply-side approach,” another way of saying trickle-down economics.

Read more:

The GOP tax plan, explained in simplest possible terms

Fact-checking President Trump’s tax speech in Indianapolis

The one surefire way to grow your wealth in the U.S.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/28/9-ways-trumps-tax-plan-is-a-gift-to-the-rich-including-himself/?utm_term=.bb9dafe36550

The GOP tax plan, explained in simplest possible terms

The big tax code makeover President Trump and Republicans have been promising for months is finally out.

It’s nine pages long. That may sound like a lengthy document, but the final bill in Congress will be hundreds of pages. What the White House released today is a framework. It’s a summary of what top Trump officials and congressional Republican leaders have agreed to so far. The Trump administration says it’s the job of Congress to flesh out the specifics.

Here are the key takeaways:

  • The plan will likely add to America’s $20 trillion debt. There are lots of tax cuts spelled out. There are almost no loopholes eliminated.
  • The rich make out pretty well. The White House vows poor people won’t have to pay more than they do now, but there are few specifics in the plan so far to ensure that.
  • Businesses (both small and large) get major tax cuts.
  • Most people will pay lower taxes, although it’s unclear if the rich get a bigger break than the middle class.
  • There are still a lot of details Congress has to figure out.

What’s in there for the rich?
The wealthy get a tax cut. They will pay only 35 percent on their income taxes (down from 39.6 percent). At the moment, this rate applies to any income above about $418,000. It’s unclear if Congress will tinker with the income level that rate kicks in at. Trump says he would be fine with Congress raising taxes on the rich in the final plan, but he isn’t requiring that they do that.

The bigger tax break for the rich is the elimination of the estate tax, sometimes called the “death tax.” It’s the tax families currently pay when an asset like a house or ranch worth over $5.49 million is passed down to a heir after someone dies. Trump’s plan scraps this tax entirely.

What’s in there for the middle class?
This is the giant question mark. There’s a lot of details left for Congress to fill out. Under the plan, America will have just three tax rates: 35, 25 and 12 percent, but we don’t know yet which rate someone earning $50,000 or $80,000 will pay.

What we do know is the standard deduction (currently $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for married couples) will nearly double. This means that a married couple earning $24,000 or less or an individual earning $12,000 or less won’t pay any taxes. But the plan also eliminates what’s known as the additional standard deduction and the popular personal exemption. Some filers may end up worse off after these changes.

The plan also promises a “significant increase” to the child tax credit (it’s currently $1,000 per child) and that middle class Americans can keep using the mortgage interest deduction as well as tax breaks for retirement savings (e.g. 401ks) and higher education. But it eliminates the state and local tax deduction, which is used by many in high-tax states like New York and California.

Can I really file my taxes on a postcard?
The “file on a postcard” idea was an exaggeration. The goal now is to get most people’s tax returns down to one page.

What about the working poor?
A senior White House official told journalists Tuesday, “We are committed to making the tax code at least as progressive as the current tax code.” Translation: The poor should not end up paying more than they do now. But it’s hard to check if that’s true because we still don’t have enough details.

In theory, increasing the standard deduction should mean that more Americans pay $0 in taxes, but it depends what happens to a lot of other tax provisions (and whether Congress ends up cutting safety net programs that help the poor to pay for tax cuts). Top Republican officials have not decided what to do with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is widely used by the working poor to help them reduce their tax bill and even get a small amount of money back from the government.

What happens to the Alternative Minimum Tax?
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would go away under the plan. It currently applies mainly to individuals earning more than $130,000 and married couples earning more than $160,00. It was created in the 1970s to prevent wealthier families from taking so many tax breaks that they end up paying little to no taxes, but over the years, the AMT has impacted more and more families.

What happens to big businesses?
America’s large corporations will get a big tax cut. The top rate at the moment is 35 percent, one of the highest rates among developed nations. Most U.S. companies don’t pay that rate, but it is still a starting point. The Trump plan slashes the rate to 20 percent, just below the average of major developed countries the U.S. competes against.

The White House and Congress promised to close some loopholes that businesses currently enjoy, but no one is saying what those are yet. In fact, the only details we have show MORE business goodies, not less. The plan calls for businesses to be able to write off their investments (e.g. the cost of building a new factory) right away instead of crediting a little bit each year for several years. This is supposed to encourage companies to invest more, which will hopefully create more jobs.

What happens to small businesses?
Small businesses also get a tax cut under the plan. At the moment, many small business owners pay whatever their personal income tax rate is, so some end up paying as much as 39.6 percent. Under this plan, most “pass throughs” (code for small businesses) would pay at the 25 percent rate (the exception is if a small businesses earned very little income, they might be able to pay at the 12 percent rate).

There’s concern some rich people, especially hedge fund managers and consultants to the stars, will simply use this as a way to lower their tax bill. Instead of paying at the new 35 percent top income tax rate, they could say all their income is small business income and pay at the 25 percent rate. Trump has promised to fix that problem, but no one is sure how.

How will this plan help growth?
Trump’s big claim is that this tax overhaul will unleash economic growth. The United States has been growing at about 2 percent a year lately, below the historic norm. Trump keeps saying this plan will unleash growth of 3 percent — or more.

Economists, even those who work at Wall Street banks and for big companies, only project a modest boost to growth. Estimates range from 2.1 percent to 2.25 percent.

How much will this add to the debt?
Originally, Republican leaders said they would not add $1 to America’s debt, but that promise appears to be gone. The White House says it will go along with whatever price tag Congress allows. Right now, Senate Republicans have a deal to add $1.5 trillion to the debt over the next decade, so there’s a good chance this tax plan will add to the debt.

What are the pitfalls?
There’s a ton we don’t know yet. Many on the left are concerned this plan gives away too much to the rich and big businesses. Many across the political spectrum are alarmed that it will likely add to America’s already large debt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/27/the-gop-tax-plan-explained-in-simplest-possible-terms/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.4de9a2bfc9ce

Some tax breaks are for the rich.
Others for the poor. Which are for you?

The Republican tax reform plan is finally out – you can read the full document here. The framework touches on many parts of the tax code, but two critical areas are tax deductions and credits. These reduce how much taxpayers owe, but they affect income groups differently. How could the proposed changes to these policies affect your taxes?

Most beneficial tax deductions and exemptions, 2015

Deductions and exemptions reduce your tax bill by decreasing your taxable income.

Other deductionsState and local taxesCharitable contributionsReal estate taxesEmployee business expensesMedical/dental expensesHome mortgage interestStandard deductionPersonal and dependent exemptions$10,000$25,000$50,000$100,000$500,000Lower incomeHigher income$30,000 to $40,000
DEDUCTION MEAN DEDUCTION*
Personal and dependent exemptions (?) $7,700
Standard deduction (?) $7,100
Home mortgage interest (?) $700
Medical/dental expenses (?) $500
Employee business expenses (?) $400
Real estate taxes (?) $400
Charitable contributions (?) $300
State and local taxes (?) $200
Other deductions $200

* Mean deduction is the total deduction amount received by the income group divided by the number of returns in that group, including those that did not receive the deduction.

Note: Returns for those filing singly and those filing jointly or in other categories are lumped together. Tax returns cannot claim both the standard deductions and itemized deductions. Total deductions and exemptions can exceed adjusted gross income, but the excess does not affect taxes owed, as taxable income cannot drop below zero.

Taxpayers – except the highest earners – are currently eligible for tax “exemptions” to reduce their taxable income. In 2016, Americans could take a $4,050 personal exemption from their income (double if filing as a married couple), and then get additional exemptions for dependents.

After exemptions taxpayers can further reduce their taxable income by taking tax deductions. 69 percent of taxpayers in 2015 took the “standard deduction,” a fixed amount that is currently $6,300 for (most) taxpayers filing singly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/tax-breaks/?utm_term=.09de159b6eeb

subscribe
The story must be told.
Your subscription supports journalism that matters.

The remaining taxpayers – mostly in higher income groups – “itemized” their tax returns, meaning they chose to take advantage of more specific tax deductions based on their expenses. The deductions came out to more than they would have gotten through the standard deduction.

Here’s what the Republican’s tax reform framework would change about deductions:

  • Republicans want to nearly double the standard deduction to $12,000 for those filing singly and $24,000 for those filing jointly. At the same time, the framework calls for the repeal of exemptions, consolidating these different parts of the tax system.
  • The framework aims to simplify the tax code by gutting many itemized deductions, although charitable contributions and mortgage interestwould be retained. That makes the state and local taxes deduction (SALT) a major target. SALT lets you deduct state and local income or sales taxes you owe from your federal taxable income and largely benefits blue states with higher taxes.

Most beneficial tax credits, 2015

Tax credits are subtracted directly from taxes owed.

Prior-year minimum tax creditGeneral business creditResidential energy creditsForeign tax creditChild care creditOther creditsAmerican opportunity creditNonrefundable education creditChild tax creditAdditional child tax creditEarned income credit$10,000$25,000$50,000$100,000$500,000Lower incomeHigher income$30,000 to $40,000
CREDIT MEAN CREDIT*
Earned income credit (?) $500
Additional child tax credit (?) $300
Child tax credit (?) $200
Nonrefundable education credit (?) $100
American opportunity credit (?) $100
Other credits $0
Child care credit (?) $0
Foreign tax credit (?) $0
Residential energy credits (?) $0
General business credit (?) $0
Prior-year minimum tax credit (?) $0

* Mean credit is the total credit amount received by the income group divided by the number of returns in that group, including those that did not receive the credit.

Note: Returns for those filing singly and those filing jointly or in other categories are lumped together.

Credits can reduce federal income taxes owed down to zero, but “refundable” credits can reduce them even more, allowing some taxpayers to receive a net gain from the federal government after filing.

Here’s what the Republican’s tax reform framework would change about credits:

  • The plan calls for an expansion of the child tax credit, increasing its value from the current $1,000 max and making it available to more income groups. The framework also proposes an additional $500 non-refundable credit for “non-child dependents.”
  • Like with deductions, the framework calls for the repeal of “numerous other” credits to simplify the tax code but does not specify which policies will be targeted.

Just part of the picture

Of course, the tax policies we’re looking at above are just part of U.S. federal tax code. Actual income tax rates are central to tax reform proposals; the Republican tax reform framework would reduce the seven income brackets currently used to just three, lowering rates for many but increasing them for some in the lowest bracket. It also calls for the repeal of the estate tax.

The plan also proposes a large decrease in the corporate tax rate from 35 to 20 percent, among many other changes to the business tax code.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/tax-breaks/?utm_term=.09de159b6eeb

The Internal Revenue Service has recently released new data on individual income taxes for calendar year 2014, showing the number of taxpayers, adjusted gross income, and income tax shares by income percentiles.[1]

The data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be very progressive, borne mainly by the highest income earners.

  • In 2014, 139.6 million taxpayers reported earning $9.71 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.37 trillion in individual income taxes.
  • The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to 20.6 percent in 2014. Their share of federal individual income taxes also rose, to 39.5 percent.
  • In 2014, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.3 percent of all individual income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.7 percent.
  • The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).
  • The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 27.1 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.5 percent).

Reported Income and Taxes Paid Both Increased Significantly in 2014

Taxpayers reported $9.71 trillion in adjusted gross income (AGI) on 139.5 million tax returns in 2014. Total AGI grew by $675 billion from the previous year’s levels. There were 1.2 million more returns filed in 2014 than in 2013, meaning that average AGI rose by $4,252 per return, or 6.5 percent.

Meanwhile, taxpayers paid $1.37 trillion in individual income taxes in 2014, an 11.5 percent increase from taxes paid in the previous year. The average individual income tax rate for all taxpayers rose from 13.64 percent to 14.16 percent. Moreover, the average tax rate increased for all income groups, except for the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers, whose average rate decreased from 27.91 percent to 27.67 percent.

The most likely explanation behind the higher tax rates in 2014 is a phenomenon known as “real bracket creep.” [2] As incomes rise, households are pushed into higher tax brackets, and are subject to higher overall tax rates on their income. On the other hand, the likely reason why the top 0.1 percent of households saw a slightly lower tax rate in 2014 is because a higher portion of their income consisted of long-term capital gains, which are subject to lower tax rates.[3]

The share of income earned by the top 1 percent rose to 20.58 percent of total AGI, up from 19.04 percent in 2013. The share of the income tax burden for the top 1 percent also rose, from 37.80 percent in 2013 to 39.48 percent in 2014.

Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Top 50% Bottom 50% All Taxpayers
Table 1. Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2014
Number of Returns 1,395,620 6,978,102 13,956,203 34,890,509 69,781,017 69,781,017 139,562,034
Adjusted Gross Income ($ millions) $1,997,819 $3,490,867 $4,583,416 $6,690,287 $8,614,544 $1,094,119 $9,708,663
Share of Total Adjusted Gross Income 20.58% 35.96% 47.21% 68.91% 88.73% 11.27% 100.00%
Income Taxes Paid ($ millions) $542,640 $824,153 $974,124 $1,192,679 $1,336,637 $37,740 $1,374,379
Share of Total Income Taxes Paid 39.48% 59.97% 70.88% 86.78% 97.25% 2.75% 100.00%
Income Split Point $465,626 $188,996 $133,445 $77,714 $38,173
Average Tax Rate 27.16% 23.61% 21.25% 17.83% 15.52% 3.45% 14.16%
 Note: Does not include dependent filers

High-Income Americans Paid the Majority of Federal Taxes

In 2014, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (those with AGIs below $38,173) earned 11.27 percent of total AGI. This group of taxpayers paid approximately $38 billion in taxes, or 2.75 percent of all income taxes in 2014.

In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs of $465,626 and above) earned 20.58 percent of all AGI in 2014, but paid 39.48 percent of all federal income taxes.

In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $543 billion, or 39.48 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $400 billion, or 29.12 percent of all income taxes.

Figure 1.

High-Income Taxpayers Pay the Highest Average Tax Rates

The 2014 IRS data shows that taxpayers with higher incomes pay much higher average individual income tax rates than lower-income taxpayers.[4]

The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs below $38,173) faced an average income tax rate of 3.45 percent. As household income increases, the IRS data shows that average income tax rates rise. For example, taxpayers with AGIs between the 10th and 5th percentile ($133,445 and $188,996) pay an average rate of 13.7 percent – almost four times the rate paid by those in the bottom 50 percent.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI of $465,626 and above) paid the highest effective income tax rate, at 27.2 percent, 7.9 times the rate faced by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers.

Figure 2.

Taxpayers at the very top of the income distribution, the top 0.1 percent (with AGIs over $2.14 million), paid an even higher average tax rate, of 27.7 percent.

573 $442 $1,015 $458 $1,473 $318
1982 $1,876 $167 $398 $207 $605 $460 $1,065 $478 $1,544 $332
1983 $1,970 $183 $428 $217 $646 $481 $1,127 $498 $1,625 $344
1984 $2,173 $210 $482 $240 $723 $528 $1,251 $543 $1,794 $379
1985 $2,344 $235 $531 $260 $791 $567 $1,359 $580 $1,939 $405
1986 $2,524 $285 $608 $278 $887 $604 $1,490 $613 $2,104 $421
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 $2,814 $347 $722 $316 $1,038 $671 $1,709 $664 $2,374 $440
1988 $3,124 $474 $891 $342 $1,233 $718 $1,951 $707 $2,658 $466
1989 $3,299 $468 $918 $368 $1,287 $768 $2,054 $751 $2,805 $494
1990 $3,451 $483 $953 $385 $1,338 $806 $2,144 $788 $2,933 $519
1991 $3,516 $457 $943 $400 $1,343 $832 $2,175 $809 $2,984 $532
1992 $3,681 $524 $1,031 $413 $1,444 $856 $2,299 $832 $3,131 $549
1993 $3,776 $521 $1,048 $426 $1,474 $883 $2,358 $854 $3,212 $563
1994 $3,961 $547 $1,103 $449 $1,552 $929 $2,481 $890 $3,371 $590
1995 $4,245 $620 $1,223 $482 $1,705 $985 $2,690 $938 $3,628 $617
1996 $4,591 $737 $1,394 $515 $1,909 $1,043 $2,953 $992 $3,944 $646
1997 $5,023 $873 $1,597 $554 $2,151 $1,116 $3,268 $1,060 $4,328 $695
1998 $5,469 $1,010 $1,797 $597 $2,394 $1,196 $3,590 $1,132 $4,721 $748
1999 $5,909 $1,153 $2,012 $641 $2,653 $1,274 $3,927 $1,199 $5,126 $783
2000 $6,424 $1,337 $2,267 $688 $2,955 $1,358 $4,314 $1,276 $5,590 $834
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 $6,116 $492 $1,065 $1,934 $666 $2,600 $1,334 $3,933 $1,302 $5,235 $881
2002 $5,982 $421 $960 $1,812 $660 $2,472 $1,339 $3,812 $1,303 $5,115 $867
2003 $6,157 $466 $1,030 $1,908 $679 $2,587 $1,375 $3,962 $1,325 $5,287 $870
2004 $6,735 $615 $1,279 $2,243 $725 $2,968 $1,455 $4,423 $1,403 $5,826 $908
2005 $7,366 $784 $1,561 $2,623 $778 $3,401 $1,540 $4,940 $1,473 $6,413 $953
2006 $7,970 $895 $1,761 $2,918 $841 $3,760 $1,652 $5,412 $1,568 $6,980 $990
2007 $8,622 $1,030 $1,971 $3,223 $905 $4,128 $1,770 $5,898 $1,673 $7,571 $1,051
2008 $8,206 $826 $1,657 $2,868 $905 $3,773 $1,782 $5,555 $1,673 $7,228 $978
2009 $7,579 $602 $1,305 $2,439 $878 $3,317 $1,740 $5,058 $1,620 $6,678 $900
2010 $8,040 $743 $1,517 $2,716 $915 $3,631 $1,800 $5,431 $1,665 $7,096 $944
2011 $8,317 $737 $1,556 $2,819 $956 $3,775 $1,866 $5,641 $1,716 $7,357 $961
2012 $9,042 $1,017 $1,977 $3,331 $997 $4,328 $1,934 $6,262 $1,776 $8,038 $1,004
2013 $9,034 $816 $1,720 $3,109 $1,034 $4,143 $2,008 $6,152 $1,844 $7,996 $1,038
2014 $9,709 $986 $1,998 $3,491 $1,093 $4,583 $2,107 $6,690 $1,924 $8,615 $1,094
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
Table 4. Total Income Tax after Credits, 1980–2014 ($Billions)
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
1980 $249 $47 $92 $31 $123 $59 $182 $50 $232 $18
1981 $282 $50 $99 $36 $135 $69 $204 $57 $261 $21
1982 $276 $53 $100 $34 $134 $66 $200 $56 $256 $20
1983 $272 $55 $101 $34 $135 $64 $199 $54 $252 $19
1984 $297 $63 $113 $37 $150 $68 $219 $57 $276 $22
1985 $322 $70 $125 $41 $166 $73 $238 $60 $299 $23
1986 $367 $94 $156 $44 $201 $78 $279 $64 $343 $24
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 $369 $92 $160 $46 $205 $79 $284 $63 $347 $22
1988 $413 $114 $188 $48 $236 $85 $321 $68 $389 $24
1989 $433 $109 $190 $51 $241 $93 $334 $73 $408 $25
1990 $447 $112 $195 $52 $248 $97 $344 $77 $421 $26
1991 $448 $111 $194 $56 $250 $96 $347 $77 $424 $25
1992 $476 $131 $218 $58 $276 $97 $374 $78 $452 $24
1993 $503 $146 $238 $60 $298 $101 $399 $80 $479 $24
1994 $535 $154 $254 $64 $318 $108 $425 $84 $509 $25
1995 $588 $178 $288 $70 $357 $115 $473 $88 $561 $27
1996 $658 $213 $335 $76 $411 $124 $535 $95 $630 $28
1997 $727 $241 $377 $82 $460 $134 $594 $102 $696 $31
1998 $788 $274 $425 $88 $513 $139 $652 $103 $755 $33
1999 $877 $317 $486 $97 $583 $150 $733 $109 $842 $35
2000 $981 $367 $554 $106 $660 $164 $824 $118 $942 $38
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 $885 $139 $294 $462 $101 $564 $158 $722 $120 $842 $43
2002 $794 $120 $263 $420 $93 $513 $143 $657 $104 $761 $33
2003 $746 $115 $251 $399 $85 $484 $133 $617 $98 $715 $30
2004 $829 $142 $301 $467 $91 $558 $137 $695 $102 $797 $32
2005 $932 $176 $361 $549 $98 $647 $145 $793 $106 $898 $33
2006 $1,020 $196 $402 $607 $108 $715 $157 $872 $113 $986 $35
2007 $1,112 $221 $443 $666 $117 $783 $170 $953 $122 $1,075 $37
2008 $1,029 $187 $386 $597 $115 $712 $168 $880 $117 $997 $32
2009 $863 $146 $314 $502 $101 $604 $146 $749 $93 $842 $21
2010 $949 $170 $355 $561 $110 $670 $156 $827 $100 $927 $22
2011 $1,043 $168 $366 $589 $123 $712 $181 $893 $120 $1,012 $30
2012 $1,185 $220 $451 $699 $133 $831 $193 $1,024 $128 $1,152 $33
2013 $1,232 $228 $466 $721 $139 $860 $203 $1,063 $135 $1,198 $34
2014 $1,374 $273 $543 $824 $150 $974 $219 $1,193 $144 $1,337 $38
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
Table 5. Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980–2014 (percent of total AGI earned by each group)
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
1980 100% 8.46% 21.01% 11.12% 32.13% 24.57% 56.70% 25.62% 82.32% 17.68%
1981 100% 8.30% 20.78% 11.20% 31.98% 24.69% 56.67% 25.59% 82.25% 17.75%
1982 100% 8.91% 21.23% 11.03% 32.26% 24.53% 56.79% 25.50% 82.29% 17.71%
1983 100% 9.29% 21.74% 11.04% 32.78% 24.44% 57.22% 25.30% 82.52% 17.48%
1984 100% 9.66% 22.19% 11.06% 33.25% 24.31% 57.56% 25.00% 82.56% 17.44%
1985 100% 10.03% 22.67% 11.10% 33.77% 24.21% 57.97% 24.77% 82.74% 17.26%
1986 100% 11.30% 24.11% 11.02% 35.12% 23.92% 59.04% 24.30% 83.34% 16.66%
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 100% 12.32% 25.67% 11.23% 36.90% 23.85% 60.75% 23.62% 84.37% 15.63%
1988 100% 15.16% 28.51% 10.94% 39.45% 22.99% 62.44% 22.63% 85.07% 14.93%
1989 100% 14.19% 27.84% 11.16% 39.00% 23.28% 62.28% 22.76% 85.04% 14.96%
1990 100% 14.00% 27.62% 11.15% 38.77% 23.36% 62.13% 22.84% 84.97% 15.03%
1991 100% 12.99% 26.83% 11.37% 38.20% 23.65% 61.85% 23.01% 84.87% 15.13%
1992 100% 14.23% 28.01% 11.21% 39.23% 23.25% 62.47% 22.61% 85.08% 14.92%
1993 100% 13.79% 27.76% 11.29% 39.05% 23.40% 62.45% 22.63% 85.08% 14.92%
1994 100% 13.80% 27.85% 11.34% 39.19% 23.45% 62.64% 22.48% 85.11% 14.89%
1995 100% 14.60% 28.81% 11.35% 40.16% 23.21% 63.37% 22.09% 85.46% 14.54%
1996 100% 16.04% 30.36% 11.23% 41.59% 22.73% 64.32% 21.60% 85.92% 14.08%
1997 100% 17.38% 31.79% 11.03% 42.83% 22.22% 65.05% 21.11% 86.16% 13.84%
1998 100% 18.47% 32.85% 10.92% 43.77% 21.87% 65.63% 20.69% 86.33% 13.67%
1999 100% 19.51% 34.04% 10.85% 44.89% 21.57% 66.46% 20.29% 86.75% 13.25%
2000 100% 20.81% 35.30% 10.71% 46.01% 21.15% 67.15% 19.86% 87.01% 12.99%
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 100% 8.05% 17.41% 31.61% 10.89% 42.50% 21.80% 64.31% 21.29% 85.60% 14.40%
2002 100% 7.04% 16.05% 30.29% 11.04% 41.33% 22.39% 63.71% 21.79% 85.50% 14.50%
2003 100% 7.56% 16.73% 30.99% 11.03% 42.01% 22.33% 64.34% 21.52% 85.87% 14.13%
2004 100% 9.14% 18.99% 33.31% 10.77% 44.07% 21.60% 65.68% 20.83% 86.51% 13.49%
2005 100% 10.64% 21.19% 35.61% 10.56% 46.17% 20.90% 67.07% 19.99% 87.06% 12.94%
2006 100% 11.23% 22.10% 36.62% 10.56% 47.17% 20.73% 67.91% 19.68% 87.58% 12.42%
2007 100% 11.95% 22.86% 37.39% 10.49% 47.88% 20.53% 68.41% 19.40% 87.81% 12.19%
2008 100% 10.06% 20.19% 34.95% 11.03% 45.98% 21.71% 67.69% 20.39% 88.08% 11.92%
2009 100% 7.94% 17.21% 32.18% 11.59% 43.77% 22.96% 66.74% 21.38% 88.12% 11.88%
2010 100% 9.24% 18.87% 33.78% 11.38% 45.17% 22.38% 67.55% 20.71% 88.26% 11.74%
2011 100% 8.86% 18.70% 33.89% 11.50% 45.39% 22.43% 67.82% 20.63% 88.45% 11.55%
2012 100% 11.25% 21.86% 36.84% 11.03% 47.87% 21.39% 69.25% 19.64% 88.90% 11.10%
2013 100% 9.03% 19.04% 34.42% 11.45% 45.87% 22.23% 68.10% 20.41% 88.51% 11.49%
2014 100% 10.16% 20.58% 35.96% 11.25% 47.21% 21.70% 68.91% 19.82% 88.73% 11.27%
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
Table 6. Total Income Tax Shares, 1980–2014 (percent of federal income tax paid by each group)
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
1980 100% 19.05% 36.84% 12.44% 49.28% 23.74% 73.02% 19.93% 92.95% 7.05%
1981 100% 17.58% 35.06% 12.90% 47.96% 24.33% 72.29% 20.26% 92.55% 7.45%
1982 100% 19.03% 36.13% 12.45% 48.59% 23.91% 72.50% 20.15% 92.65% 7.35%
1983 100% 20.32% 37.26% 12.44% 49.71% 23.39% 73.10% 19.73% 92.83% 7.17%
1984 100% 21.12% 37.98% 12.58% 50.56% 22.92% 73.49% 19.16% 92.65% 7.35%
1985 100% 21.81% 38.78% 12.67% 51.46% 22.60% 74.06% 18.77% 92.83% 7.17%
1986 100% 25.75% 42.57% 12.12% 54.69% 21.33% 76.02% 17.52% 93.54% 6.46%
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 100% 24.81% 43.26% 12.35% 55.61% 21.31% 76.92% 17.02% 93.93% 6.07%
1988 100% 27.58% 45.62% 11.66% 57.28% 20.57% 77.84% 16.44% 94.28% 5.72%
1989 100% 25.24% 43.94% 11.85% 55.78% 21.44% 77.22% 16.94% 94.17% 5.83%
1990 100% 25.13% 43.64% 11.73% 55.36% 21.66% 77.02% 17.16% 94.19% 5.81%
1991 100% 24.82% 43.38% 12.45% 55.82% 21.46% 77.29% 17.23% 94.52% 5.48%
1992 100% 27.54% 45.88% 12.12% 58.01% 20.47% 78.48% 16.46% 94.94% 5.06%
1993 100% 29.01% 47.36% 11.88% 59.24% 20.03% 79.27% 15.92% 95.19% 4.81%
1994 100% 28.86% 47.52% 11.93% 59.45% 20.10% 79.55% 15.68% 95.23% 4.77%
1995 100% 30.26% 48.91% 11.84% 60.75% 19.62% 80.36% 15.03% 95.39% 4.61%
1996 100% 32.31% 50.97% 11.54% 62.51% 18.80% 81.32% 14.36% 95.68% 4.32%
1997 100% 33.17% 51.87% 11.33% 63.20% 18.47% 81.67% 14.05% 95.72% 4.28%
1998 100% 34.75% 53.84% 11.20% 65.04% 17.65% 82.69% 13.10% 95.79% 4.21%
1999 100% 36.18% 55.45% 11.00% 66.45% 17.09% 83.54% 12.46% 96.00% 4.00%
2000 100% 37.42% 56.47% 10.86% 67.33% 16.68% 84.01% 12.08% 96.09% 3.91%
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 100% 15.68% 33.22% 52.24% 11.44% 63.68% 17.88% 81.56% 13.54% 95.10% 4.90%
2002 100% 15.09% 33.09% 52.86% 11.77% 64.63% 18.04% 82.67% 13.12% 95.79% 4.21%
2003 100% 15.37% 33.69% 53.54% 11.35% 64.89% 17.87% 82.76% 13.17% 95.93% 4.07%
2004 100% 17.12% 36.28% 56.35% 10.96% 67.30% 16.52% 83.82% 12.31% 96.13% 3.87%
2005 100% 18.91% 38.78% 58.93% 10.52% 69.46% 15.61% 85.07% 11.35% 96.41% 3.59%
2006 100% 19.24% 39.36% 59.49% 10.59% 70.08% 15.41% 85.49% 11.10% 96.59% 3.41%
2007 100% 19.84% 39.81% 59.90% 10.51% 70.41% 15.30% 85.71% 10.93% 96.64% 3.36%
2008 100% 18.20% 37.51% 58.06% 11.14% 69.20% 16.37% 85.57% 11.33% 96.90% 3.10%
2009 100% 16.91% 36.34% 58.17% 11.72% 69.89% 16.85% 86.74% 10.80% 97.54% 2.46%
2010 100% 17.88% 37.38% 59.07% 11.55% 70.62% 16.49% 87.11% 10.53% 97.64% 2.36%
2011 100% 16.14% 35.06% 56.49% 11.77% 68.26% 17.36% 85.62% 11.50% 97.11% 2.89%
2012 100% 18.60% 38.09% 58.95% 11.22% 70.17% 16.25% 86.42% 10.80% 97.22% 2.78%
2013 100% 18.48% 37.80% 58.55% 11.25% 69.80% 16.47% 86.27% 10.94% 97.22% 2.78%
2014 100% 19.85% 39.48% 59.97% 10.91% 70.88% 15.90% 86.78% 10.47% 97.25% 2.75%
Year Total Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Top 50%
Table 7. Dollar Cut-Off, 1980–2014 (Minimum AGI for Tax Returns to Fall into Various Percentiles; Thresholds Not Adjusted for Inflation)
1980 $80,580 $43,792 $35,070 $23,606 $12,936
1981 $85,428 $47,845 $38,283 $25,655 $14,000
1982 $89,388 $49,284 $39,676 $27,027 $14,539
1983 $93,512 $51,553 $41,222 $27,827 $15,044
1984 $100,889 $55,423 $43,956 $29,360 $15,998
1985 $108,134 $58,883 $46,322 $30,928 $16,688
1986 $118,818 $62,377 $48,656 $32,242 $17,302
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 $139,289 $68,414 $52,921 $33,983 $17,768
1988 $157,136 $72,735 $55,437 $35,398 $18,367
1989 $163,869 $76,933 $58,263 $36,839 $18,993
1990 $167,421 $79,064 $60,287 $38,080 $19,767
1991 $170,139 $81,720 $61,944 $38,929 $20,097
1992 $181,904 $85,103 $64,457 $40,378 $20,803
1993 $185,715 $87,386 $66,077 $41,210 $21,179
1994 $195,726 $91,226 $68,753 $42,742 $21,802
1995 $209,406 $96,221 $72,094 $44,207 $22,344
1996 $227,546 $101,141 $74,986 $45,757 $23,174
1997 $250,736 $108,048 $79,212 $48,173 $24,393
1998 $269,496 $114,729 $83,220 $50,607 $25,491
1999 $293,415 $120,846 $87,682 $52,965 $26,415
2000 $313,469 $128,336 $92,144 $55,225 $27,682
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 $1,393,718 $306,635 $132,082 $96,151 $59,026 $31,418
2002 $1,245,352 $296,194 $130,750 $95,699 $59,066 $31,299
2003 $1,317,088 $305,939 $133,741 $97,470 $59,896 $31,447
2004 $1,617,918 $339,993 $140,758 $101,838 $62,794 $32,622
2005 $1,938,175 $379,261 $149,216 $106,864 $64,821 $33,484
2006 $2,124,625 $402,603 $157,390 $112,016 $67,291 $34,417
2007 $2,251,017 $426,439 $164,883 $116,396 $69,559 $35,541
2008 $1,867,652 $392,513 $163,512 $116,813 $69,813 $35,340
2009 $1,469,393 $351,968 $157,342 $114,181 $68,216 $34,156
2010 $1,634,386 $369,691 $161,579 $116,623 $69,126 $34,338
2011 $1,717,675 $388,905 $167,728 $120,136 $70,492 $34,823
2012 $2,161,175 $434,682 $175,817 $125,195 $73,354 $36,055
2013 $1,860,848 $428,713 $179,760 $127,695 $74,955 $36,841
2014 $2,136,762 $465,626 $188,996 $133,445 $77,714 $38,173
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
Table 8. Average Tax Rate, 1980–2014 (Percent of AGI Paid in Income Taxes)
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
1980 15.31% 34.47% 26.85% 17.13% 23.49% 14.80% 19.72% 11.91% 17.29% 6.10%
1981 15.76% 33.37% 26.59% 18.16% 23.64% 15.53% 20.11% 12.48% 17.73% 6.62%
1982 14.72% 31.43% 25.05% 16.61% 22.17% 14.35% 18.79% 11.63% 16.57% 6.10%
1983 13.79% 30.18% 23.64% 15.54% 20.91% 13.20% 17.62% 10.76% 15.52% 5.66%
1984 13.68% 29.92% 23.42% 15.57% 20.81% 12.90% 17.47% 10.48% 15.35% 5.77%
1985 13.73% 29.86% 23.50% 15.69% 20.93% 12.83% 17.55% 10.41% 15.41% 5.70%
1986 14.54% 33.13% 25.68% 15.99% 22.64% 12.97% 18.72% 10.48% 16.32% 5.63%
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 13.12% 26.41% 22.10% 14.43% 19.77% 11.71% 16.61% 9.45% 14.60% 5.09%
1988 13.21% 24.04% 21.14% 14.07% 19.18% 11.82% 16.47% 9.60% 14.64% 5.06%
1989 13.12% 23.34% 20.71% 13.93% 18.77% 12.08% 16.27% 9.77% 14.53% 5.11%
1990 12.95% 23.25% 20.46% 13.63% 18.50% 12.01% 16.06% 9.73% 14.36% 5.01%
1991 12.75% 24.37% 20.62% 13.96% 18.63% 11.57% 15.93% 9.55% 14.20% 4.62%
1992 12.94% 25.05% 21.19% 13.99% 19.13% 11.39% 16.25% 9.42% 14.44% 4.39%
1993 13.32% 28.01% 22.71% 14.01% 20.20% 11.40% 16.90% 9.37% 14.90% 4.29%
1994 13.50% 28.23% 23.04% 14.20% 20.48% 11.57% 17.15% 9.42% 15.11% 4.32%
1995 13.86% 28.73% 23.53% 14.46% 20.97% 11.71% 17.58% 9.43% 15.47% 4.39%
1996 14.34% 28.87% 24.07% 14.74% 21.55% 11.86% 18.12% 9.53% 15.96% 4.40%
1997 14.48% 27.64% 23.62% 14.87% 21.36% 12.04% 18.18% 9.63% 16.09% 4.48%
1998 14.42% 27.12% 23.63% 14.79% 21.42% 11.63% 18.16% 9.12% 16.00% 4.44%
1999 14.85% 27.53% 24.18% 15.06% 21.98% 11.76% 18.66% 9.12% 16.43% 4.48%
2000 15.26% 27.45% 24.42% 15.48% 22.34% 12.04% 19.09% 9.28% 16.86% 4.60%
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 14.47% 28.17% 27.60% 23.91% 15.20% 21.68% 11.87% 18.35% 9.20% 16.08% 4.92%
2002 13.28% 28.48% 27.37% 23.17% 14.15% 20.76% 10.70% 17.23% 8.00% 14.87% 3.86%
2003 12.11% 24.60% 24.38% 20.92% 12.46% 18.70% 9.69% 15.57% 7.41% 13.53% 3.49%
2004 12.31% 23.06% 23.52% 20.83% 12.53% 18.80% 9.41% 15.71% 7.27% 13.68% 3.53%
2005 12.65% 22.48% 23.15% 20.93% 12.61% 19.03% 9.45% 16.04% 7.18% 14.01% 3.51%
2006 12.80% 21.94% 22.80% 20.80% 12.84% 19.02% 9.52% 16.12% 7.22% 14.12% 3.51%
2007 12.90% 21.42% 22.46% 20.66% 12.92% 18.96% 9.61% 16.16% 7.27% 14.19% 3.56%
2008 12.54% 22.67% 23.29% 20.83% 12.66% 18.87% 9.45% 15.85% 6.97% 13.79% 3.26%
2009 11.39% 24.28% 24.05% 20.59% 11.53% 18.19% 8.36% 14.81% 5.76% 12.61% 2.35%
2010 11.81% 22.84% 23.39% 20.64% 11.98% 18.46% 8.70% 15.22% 6.01% 13.06% 2.37%
2011 12.54% 22.82% 23.50% 20.89% 12.83% 18.85% 9.70% 15.82% 6.98% 13.76% 3.13%
2012 13.11% 21.67% 22.83% 20.97% 13.33% 19.21% 9.96% 16.35% 7.21% 14.33% 3.28%
2013 13.64% 27.91% 27.08% 23.20% 13.40% 20.75% 10.11% 17.28% 7.31% 14.98% 3.30%
2014 14.16% 27.67% 27.16% 23.61% 13.73% 21.25% 10.37% 17.83% 7.48% 15.52% 3.45%
  1. For data prior to 2001, all tax returns that have a positive AGI are included, even those that do not have a positive income tax liability. For data from 2001 forward, returns with negative AGI are also included, but dependent returns are excluded.
  2. Income tax after credits (the measure of “income taxes paid” above) does not account for the refundable portion of EITC. If it were included, the tax share of the top income groups would be higher. The refundable portion is classified as a spending program by the Office of Management and Budget and therefore is not included by the IRS in these figures.
  3. The only tax analyzed here is the federal individual income tax, which is responsible for more than 25 percent of the nation’s taxes paid (at all levels of government). Federal income taxes are much more progressive than federal payroll taxes, which are responsible for about 20 percent of all taxes paid (at all levels of government), and are more progressive than most state and local taxes.
  4. AGI is a fairly narrow income concept and does not include income items like government transfers (except for the portion of Social Security benefits that is taxed), the value of employer-provided health insurance, underreported or unreported income (most notably that of sole proprietors), income derived from municipal bond interest, net imputed rental income, and others.
  5. The unit of analysis here is that of the tax return. In the figures prior to 2001, some dependent returns are included. Under other units of analysis (like the Treasury Department’s Family Economic Unit), these returns would likely be paired with parents’ returns.
  6. These figures represent the legal incidence of the income tax. Most distributional tables (such as those from CBO, Tax Policy Center, Citizens for Tax Justice, the Treasury Department, and JCT) assume that the entire economic incidence of personal income taxes falls on the income earner.

[1] Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares, Internal Revenue Service Statistics of Income, http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Individual-Income-Tax-Rates-and-Tax-Shares.

[2] See Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027, Jan. 2017, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52370-outlook.pdf.

[3] There is strong reason to believe that capital gains realizations were unusually depressed in 2013, due to the increase in the top capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 23.8 percent. In 2013, capital gains accounted for 26.6 percent of the income of taxpayers with over $1 million in AGI received, compared to 31.7 percent in 2014 (these calculations apply for net capital gains reported on Schedule D). Table 1.4, Publication 1304, “Individual Income Tax Returns 2014,” Internal Revenue Service, https://www.irs.gov/uac/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-returns-publication-1304-complete-report.

[4] Here, “average income tax rate” is defined as income taxes paid divided by adjusted gross income.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/

 

Story 2: Secretary of Health and Human Resources Thomas Price Resigns and President Trump Accepts After Trump Outraged Over Use Expensive Private Chartered Jet Flight To Conduct Government Business — Don Wright to serve as acting secretary of the HHS — Videos —

The Real Reason Tom Price Resigned | The Last Word | MSNBC

Tom Price: From Private Jets To Private Citizen

Chris Wallace Takes On Tom Price to Pay For Charter Flights

President Trump GRILLED on Tom Price Resigns, Puerto Rico & NFL owners players press conference

What A Waste: Tom Price’s Private Jet Trips

Will HHS Secretary Tom Price Keep His Job? | Morning Joe | MSNBC

Guess What Private Jet Scold Tom Price Is Up To

Price resigns from HHS after facing fire for travel

His exit comes after POLITICO revealed his extensive use of private jets and military aircraft for government business.

Updated 

HHS Secretary Tom Price resigned Friday in the face of multiple federal inquiries and growing criticism of his use of private and government planes for travel, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $1 million since May.

The White House said the former seven-term Georgia congressman, 63, offered his resignation earlier in the day and that President Donald Trump had accepted it.

As late as Thursday, Price said he believed he had the president’s support. But the tumult surrounding his travel became another distraction for an administration already reeling from the defeat of repeated Senate efforts to repeal Obamacare and facing criticism for its hurricane relief efforts in Puerto Rico.

In his resignation letter, Price expressed regret that “recent events” distracted from efforts to overhaul the health care system, reduce regulatory burdens and improve global health. “In order for you to move forward without further disruption, I am officially tendering my resignation as the Secretary of Health and Human Services effective 11:59 PM on Friday,” Price wrote.

Tom Price resigns as Trump administration health chief after outrage over pricey private jet flights

  • Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price resigned Friday after criticism over his repeatedly taking expensive private jets instead of commercial flights.
  • Price’s private travel, added to his use of military jets for overseas trips, has cost taxpayers more than $1 million.
  • Price said he will reimburse the government just a fraction of the cost of the flights.

Senate Democrats quickly served notice they were preparing for a potential confirmation fight over Price’s successor, saying the next HHS secretary must not undermine Obamacare. Under Price, the department cut the law’s enrollment period in half and massively slashed advertising and outreach for the upcoming enrollment period starting in November.

“The mission of the Health and Human Services secretary should be to support Americans’ health care, not take it away,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “The next HHS secretary must follow the law when it comes to the Affordable Care Act instead of trying to sabotage it.”

“Tom Price’s replacement needs to be focused on implementing the law as written by Congress and keeping the president’s promise to bring down the high cost of prescription drugs,” Senate Finance ranking Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon said in a statement.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, a close ally, praised Price as a dedicated public servant who fought for others. “His vision and hard work were vital to the House’s success passing our health care legislation,” Ryan said in a statement.

POLITICO revealed in a series of articles that Price flew at least 26 times on private aircraft at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, a sharp break with his predecessors’ practice. Many of Price’s flights were between major cities that offered inexpensive alternatives on commercial airlines, including Nashville, Philadelphia and San Diego.

On some of those trips, Price, an orthopedic surgeon, mixed official business with personal affairs. He took a government-funded private jet in August to get to St. Simons Island, an exclusive Georgia resort where he and his wife own land, a day and a half before he addressed a medical conference he and his wife have long attended. In June, HHS chartered a private jet to fly Price to Nashville, where he owns a condominium and where his son resides. Price toured a medicine dispensary, spoke to a local health summit organized by a friend and had lunch with his son, an HHS official confirmed.

Price also used military aircraft for multi-national trips to Africa, Europe and Asia, at a cost of more than $500,000 to taxpayersThe White House said it had approved those trips but not the private jets within the United States.

Price tried to defuse the controversy by promising on Thursday to reimburse the government for the approximately $52,000 cost of his own seat on his domestic trips. But that wasn’t enough to tamp down the scandal, which had