WWTBAM Bored

One of the ways Donald Trump’s budget claims to balance the budget over a decade, without cutting defense or retirement spending, is to assume a $2 trillion increase in revenue through economic growth. This is the magic of the still-to-be-designed Trump tax cuts. But wait — if you recall, the magic of the Trump tax cuts is also supposed to pay for the Trump tax cuts. So the $2 trillion is a double-counting error.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... error.html

Do you intentionally plagiarize or can you not figure out to use the Quote button or tags?

Also, the article is hogwash.

If I ran Taco Bell back in the 90's, and said "By reducing the price of taco's by 65% I will increase our overall profits by 20%", I am implying that increased volume will cover not only the lost margin per taco but increase overall profits. It should go without saying that the increased volume times the lower margin exceeds the current volume times the current margin.

Just because I don't say it doesn't mean I double counted anything. I was correct to begin with. Trump may be correct now.

Basically, according to the article, this is Trump's plan, in a nutshell:

(Current taxable income * current tax rate) - current expenses = x

(Future taxable income * future tax rate) - future expenses = x + $2 trillion

Constraint: Current expense = Future expenses

That is an easy solve. Where is anything double counted?

BackInTex wrote:Do you intentionally plagiarize or can you not figure out to use the Quote button or tags?

I gave the link. I don't bother with the quote when I supply the link.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Do you intentionally plagiarize or can you not figure out to use the Quote button or tags?

I gave the link. I don't bother with the quote when I supply the link.

So you intentionally plagiarize. Not "bothering with the quote" gives the impression that those words are yours. Not everyone bothers with your links.

Maybe you'll understand Time's explanation: http://time.com/4791113/trump-budget-math-mistake/

Bob Juch wrote:Maybe you'll understand Time's explanation: http://time.com/4791113/trump-budget-math-mistake/

Its the same bogus double-speak addressed to an unsophisticated audience.

One could say "for Trump's tax cuts to pay for themselves, the economy would have to grow at 4.5 percent over the next 10 years." and say that is unrealistically optimistic. That's O.K. It may or may not be correct, but to say there is an error, a double counting, is false.

A tax rate cut does not "pay for itself". There is nothing to "pay for".

a * b = c

lowering b while assuming an increase in a can result in c remaining the same (paying for itself, if you insist), c increasing (more than paying for itself), or decreasing, in which case it was a flawed plan. And a could actually decrease which would be really bad. But if you lower b, all other things being equal, a will increase. How much is the unknown.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Maybe you'll understand Time's explanation: http://time.com/4791113/trump-budget-math-mistake/

Its the same bogus double-speak.

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Maybe you'll understand Time's explanation: http://time.com/4791113/trump-budget-math-mistake/

Its the same bogus double-speak.

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

You can't do either.

Here's a clearer explanation. The same $2 trillion is used to offset revenue losses from reducing tax rates for high-income taxpayers and also to close the budget deficit. That's double-counting. This Administration remains the gang that can't shoot straight. --Bob

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Its the same bogus double-speak.

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

You can't do either.

Bob's right...if you understand Trump is assuming the tax cuts will be revenue neutral (which Trump does).

Let's keep it simple. These aren't the real numbers but they'll do.

Trump cuts taxes by $2 trillion. Assuming no economic growth, this results in a revenue decline of $2 trillion. Trump is saying the economy WILL grow to offset that $2 trillion in revenue declines. To keep the tax cuts revenue neutral, that means the $2 trillion in economic growth goes to increased tax revenues.

HOWEVER, Trump is ALSO increasing spending by $2 trillion. That means the BUDGET DEFICIT has gone up by $4 TRILLION ($2 trillion decrease in revenues...$2 trillion increase in spending).

The economy therefore has to grow to create $4 TRILLION in additional revenues, not $2 TRILLION, in order to close the budget deficit AND keep the tax cuts revenue neutral.

Hence- Trump is double-counting the same money- using that same money for two different purposes....keeping tax cuts revenue neutral, and balancing the budget.

Here's another good one. Donny promises (on page 19 of this document) to "abolish the death tax." But his budget (in Table 11-1 of this document) assumes annual receipts of approximately $100 billion from estate and gift taxes.

This budget is a lie. And a particularly clumsy one. Which should surprise absolutely no one. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Here's another good one. Donny promises (on page 19 of this document) to "abolish the death tax." But his budget (in Table 11-1 of this document) assumes annual receipts of approximately $100 billion from estate and gift taxes.

This budget is a lie. And a particularly clumsy one. Which should surprise absolutely no one.

Your links are a lie. And a particularly clumsy one. Which should surprise absolutely no one.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Here's another good one. Donny promises (on page 19 of this document) to "abolish the death tax." But his budget (in Table 11-1 of this document) assumes annual receipts of approximately $100 billion from estate and gift taxes.

This budget is a lie. And a particularly clumsy one. Which should surprise absolutely no one.

Your links are a lie. And a particularly clumsy one. Which should surprise absolutely no one.

At least you're agreeing the current folks putting the content on whitehouse.gov can't be trusted to tell the truth...

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Here's another good one. Donny promises (on page 19 of this document) to "abolish the death tax." But his budget (in Table 11-1 of this document) assumes annual receipts of approximately $100 billion from estate and gift taxes.

This budget is a lie. And a particularly clumsy one. Which should surprise absolutely no one.

Your links are a lie. And a particularly clumsy one. Which should surprise absolutely no one.

You think someone hacked whitehouse.gov? And no one noticed? That may be even more troubling. --Bob

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Here's another good one. Donny promises (on page 19 of this document) to "abolish the death tax." But his budget (in Table 11-1 of this document) assumes annual receipts of approximately $100 billion from estate and gift taxes.

This budget is a lie. And a particularly clumsy one. Which should surprise absolutely no one.

Your links are a lie. And a particularly clumsy one. Which should surprise absolutely no one.

I see the problem. I used the wrong link for the second document. I've fixed it now.

And I see that the document has been changed since I posted the link last night. I guess Donny does read the New York Times. Or perhaps Occam's Razor provides the correct solution -- I read the line above the intended line. He's actually only attributing $30 billion in average annual revenues to a tax he says he'll repeal. --Bob

Jeemie wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Here's another good one. Donny promises (on page 19 of this document) to "abolish the death tax." But his budget (in Table 11-1 of this document) assumes annual receipts of approximately $100 billion from estate and gift taxes.

This budget is a lie. And a particularly clumsy one. Which should surprise absolutely no one.

Your links are a lie. And a particularly clumsy one. Which should surprise absolutely no one.

At least you're agreeing the current folks putting the content on whitehouse.gov can't be trusted to tell the truth...

Not quite. I'm saying Bob can't be trusted to correctly post a link. Mr. "Cite Please" can't do it himself.