Thank You Tiny and the ECCIE Fiscal Hawks

That was below the belt Oral Lover 69. It’s not your fault though. You didn’t know Mike Johnson was Blackman’s good friend. They’re both members of the Louisiana bar. Even though Johnson and Blackman are about as far apart as you can get on social issues, it wouldn’t be surprising if Blackman contributed to his campaign. Friends do that for friends.

And now, with the Big Beautiful Bill, Blackman’s having second thoughts. Or at least he’s really pissed off at Mike Johnson. But you’re not supposed to be mad at yourself or mad at your good friend. So he’s projecting on me in this thread. There’s some deep psychological shit going on here. But I’m happy to be Blackman’s scapegoat if it helps make him happy or improves his self esteem. Originally Posted by Tiny

lol. That was actually pretty good.

Sir Tiny

5 Trillion is more that 1.9 Trillion. So everything you wrote is just a load of crap. So, I am not the one that needs to get a grip. Nothing I said is false. And whomever you voted for in 2020 is irrelevant to the 2024 support of Trump. You did not have to vote for the bill if you supported the folks that did vote for it. You are all getting what you deserve. Embrace it. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Whoa! What in the wide world of sports is a-goin' on here? Tiny is now a "MAGA" Trump idolator? Silly me. All this time, I thought he was a libertarian who praised Trump for the beneficial things he did (such as sign legislation bringing the corporate tax rate more in line with the OECD average, making American firms more competitive internationally, and whacking away at the most economy-imppeding elements of the regulatory regime. But hasn't he lambasted Trump for his big spending increases and tariff delusions? I think by now everyone can see that a Trump adventure into governance (or anything else, for that matter) is going to be a mixed bag: Some good, some bad, some ugly ... and some utterly ridiculous!

I was referring to the tax rate percentages for the 7th tax bracket in the Federal Tax Tables for 2016 and 2018 (the first year of the Trump tax cuts of 2017)...

The 7th tax bracket tax rate percentage should still be at 39.6%. This is part of the reason Trump was running Trillion dollar deficits before CoVid hit... Originally Posted by adav8s28

The top tax bracket was reduced only to 37% from the previous 39.6% rate in 2017. Are you aware that raising it back to 39.6% would raise only about a penny of every deficit dollar? That's right; the increase of only the top-bracket rate to pre-2017 levels would only raise about $20 billion per year -- barely a rounding era in today's world of $2+ trillion annual deficits.

Why not take a 35,000-foot look at the actual policy landscape?

The bullshit slung from both sides is almost comically ridiculous. As MAGA cheerleaders such as Kevin Hassett and Stephen Moore tell it, the "Big, Beautiful Bill" is going to usher in a new golden age of American prosperity, bringing sustained Y/Y GDP growth rates not seen in decades and melting away deficits with gushers of new tax revenue arising from a historical economic boom.

But if you believe partisans on the other side, the legislation will give huge tax breaks to billionaires and multimillionaires while paying for them with cuts to the social safety net that threaten to leave millions of poor people dying in the streets when denied medical treatment.

Neither view is remotely true. In fact, the bill actually does surprisingly little and will be neither transformative nor destructive in any significant way. Here is a quick, reasoned look at the facts:

https://www.city-journal.org/article...-tax-cuts-debt

So, for all intents and purposes, the whole damned thing is close to being a giant nothingburger.

In my view, the sad tragedy is that we are on a fiscally unsustainable course that everyone knows is virtually certain to brew up big trouble, although it's impossible to predict how, when, and in what form possible crises will occur. So we'll roll along kicking the fiscal can down the road as long as possible.

And no one will do a damn thing about it, since politicians' goal today -- their only goal -- is to defeat the opposing party in the next round of elections.

Tough choices are required, today more than ever. But that requires leadership. (Good luck finding any of that in our elected political classes!)

Whoa! What in the wide world of sports is a-goin' on here? Tiny is now a "MAGA" Trump idolator? Silly me. All this time, I thought he was a libertarian who praised Trump for the beneficial things he did (such as sign legislation bringing the corporate tax rate more in line with the OECD average, making American firms more competitive internationally, and whacking away at the most economy-imppeding elements of the regulatory regime. But hasn't he lambasted Trump for his big spending increases and tariff delusions? I think by now everyone can see that a Trump adventure into governance (or anything else, for that matter) is going to be a mixed bag: Some good, some bad, some ugly ... and some utterly ridiculous!



The top tax bracket was reduced only to 37% from the previous 39.6% rate in 2017. Are you aware that raising it back to 39.6% would raise only about a penny of every deficit dollar? That's right; the increase of only the top-bracket rate to pre-2017 levels would only raise about $20 billion per year -- barely a rounding era in today's world of $2+ trillion annual deficits.

Why not take a 35,000-foot look at the actual policy landscape?

The bullshit slung from both sides is almost comically ridiculous. As MAGA cheerleaders such as Kevin Hassett and Stephen Moore tell it, the "Big, Beautiful Bill" is going to usher in a new golden age of American prosperity, bringing sustained Y/Y GDP growth rates not seen in decades and melting away deficits with gushers of new tax revenue arising from a historical economic boom.

But if you believe partisans on the other side, the legislation will give huge tax breaks to billionaires and multimillionaires while paying for them with cuts to the social safety net that threaten to leave millions of poor people dying in the streets when denied medical treatment.

Neither view is remotely true. In fact, the bill actually does surprisingly little and will be neither transformative nor destructive in any significant way. Here is a quick, reasoned look at the facts:

https://www.city-journal.org/article...-tax-cuts-debt

So, for all intents and purposes, the whole damned thing is close to being a giant nothingburger.

In my view, the sad tragedy is that we are on a fiscally unsustainable course that everyone knows is virtually certain to brew up big trouble, although it's impossible to predict how, when, and in what form possible crises will occur. So we'll roll along kicking the fiscal can down the road as long as possible.

And no one will do a damn thing about it, since politicians' goal today -- their only goal -- is to defeat the opposing party in the next round of elections.

Tough choices are required, today more than ever. But that requires leadership. (Good luck finding any of that in our elected political classes!) Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

... Those tough choices ARE required, mate... And the GOP
with President Trump on - is trying to be as cost-efficient
as possible...

... Which is what I like to see.
That - and beating the Dems in the next round of elections.

#### Salty

Whoa! What in the wide world of sports is a-goin' on here? Tiny is now a "MAGA" Trump idolator? Silly me. All this time, I thought he was a libertarian who praised Trump for the beneficial things he did (such as sign legislation bringing the corporate tax rate more in line with the OECD average, making American firms more competitive internationally, and whacking away at the most economy-imppeding elements of the regulatory regime. But hasn't he lambasted Trump for his big spending increases and tariff delusions? I think by now everyone can see that a Trump adventure into governance (or anything else, for that matter) is going to be a mixed bag: Some good, some bad, some ugly ... and some utterly ridiculous!



The top tax bracket was reduced only to 37% from the previous 39.6% rate in 2017. Are you aware that raising it back to 39.6% would raise only about a penny of every deficit dollar? That's right; the increase of only the top-bracket rate to pre-2017 levels would only raise about $20 billion per year -- barely a rounding era in today's world of $2+ trillion annual deficits.

Why not take a 35,000-foot look at the actual policy landscape?

The bullshit slung from both sides is almost comically ridiculous. As MAGA cheerleaders such as Kevin Hassett and Stephen Moore tell it, the "Big, Beautiful Bill" is going to usher in a new golden age of American prosperity, bringing sustained Y/Y GDP growth rates not seen in decades and melting away deficits with gushers of new tax revenue arising from a historical economic boom.

But if you believe partisans on the other side, the legislation will give huge tax breaks to billionaires and multimillionaires while paying for them with cuts to the social safety net that threaten to leave millions of poor people dying in the streets when denied medical treatment.

Neither view is remotely true. In fact, the bill actually does surprisingly little and will be neither transformative nor destructive in any significant way. Here is a quick, reasoned look at the facts:

https://www.city-journal.org/article...-tax-cuts-debt

So, for all intents and purposes, the whole damned thing is close to being a giant nothingburger.

In my view, the sad tragedy is that we are on a fiscally unsustainable course that everyone knows is virtually certain to brew up big trouble, although it's impossible to predict how, when, and in what form possible crises will occur. So we'll roll along kicking the fiscal can down the road as long as possible.

And no one will do a damn thing about it, since politicians' goal today -- their only goal -- is to defeat the opposing party in the next round of elections.

Tough choices are required, today more than ever. But that requires leadership. (Good luck finding any of that in our elected political classes!) Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

According to your link, some people who rightfully need the expanded Medicaid coverage will lose it because of the cuts called for in the BBB legislation.

From the link:

The last tranche of health-care savings comes from increased oversight and verification of eligibility for Medicaid and Obamacare benefits. Because the government pays full premiums for most enrolled, insurers have claimed federal funds for millions of Americans who did not know they were even signed up. This reform is likely to generate substantial real savings, though some who genuinely need coverage may lose it.


For the state of North Carolina it's estimated that 700,000 people will lose their Medicaid coverage. Some rural hospitals in Red states have already started to close.

From the link last sentence:

Neither party seems eager either to increase taxes or cut spending greatly, but rising interest rates may soon force them to do both.

Not only do I think the tax rate percentage in the 7th bracket should go back to 39.6% , Corporate tax rate percentage should be increased from 20% to 25%. Try these two moves for a couple of years and see if the Federal Budget deficits are lowered. In 2009 the deficit was 1 Trillion. In 2016 Obama's last year in office the deficit was 585 Billion. The deficit has done nothing but gone up since.

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-d...y-year-3306306

The top tax bracket was reduced only to 37% from the previous 39.6% rate in 2017. Are you aware that raising it back to 39.6% would raise only about a penny of every deficit dollar? That's right; the increase of only the top-bracket rate to pre-2017 levels would only raise about $20 billion per year -- barely a rounding era in today's world of $2+ trillion annual deficits. Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

I was curious about that number, $20 billion, so asked ChatGPT and also made a stab myself using IRS tax tables. Based on multiple sources, ChatGPT says the number is a lot lower than $20 billion. My calculations indicate it's higher. But either way, as you say, it's a drop in the bucket. I'm using the $500,000 threshold for my calculations based on Adav8s28's tax table.

I suspect your number is as good as any, and it represents about 0.4% of federal revenues.

ChatGPT:

Raising the top federal income tax rate from 37% to 39.6% — the rate in effect before the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) — would increase federal revenue, but by a modest amount relative to total federal receipts. The estimated revenue impact depends on behavioral responses and how much taxable income is actually earned in the top bracket.

Key Assumptions:
No changes to capital gains and dividend tax rates.

No change to other brackets or deductions.

Applies only to individual income tax on ordinary income in the top bracket (2025 top bracket starts at ~$609,350 for individuals and ~$731,200 for married couples filing jointly, indexed for inflation).

Static vs dynamic scoring: Static assumes no behavioral response; dynamic includes reduced income shifting, less work effort, etc.

Revenue Estimates (Annualized, Starting 2025):
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Tax Policy Center previously estimated:

Restoring the 39.6% rate would raise about $100–120 billion over 10 years, or $10–12 billion per year, under static scoring.

Under dynamic scoring (accounting for behavioral responses), the gain would fall to $5–8 billion per year.

Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates (from previous proposals) align similarly:

Around $114 billion over 10 years, or $11–12 billion/year, for reverting to 39.6% for top earners.

Tax Foundation dynamic model suggests:

A small GDP drag and revenue gain of ~$8 billion/year after behavioral effects.

My calculations, for latest year available (2022) for returns with > $500,000 adjusted gross income, in thousand dollars, assuming 90% of capital gains are long term (held over one year),

Total Adjusted Gross Income: 3,849,333,268
Less Tax Exempt Interest: 26,070,017
Less Qualified Dividends: 170,558,631
Less 90% of Net Capital Gains: 890,433,968
Less Untaxed Pensions & Annuities: 79,796,531
Subtotal: 2,682,474,121
2.6% of Subtotal: 69,744,327 incremental tax
Federal Government revenues: 4,900,000,000
Incremental tax as % Revenues: 1.4%

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/22in14ar.xls

A good part of the reason why my estimate's higher than the rest may be because I included all taxpayers making over $500,000 per year, while the top bracket actually starts at $609,350 for individuals and $731,200 for married couples.

... Those tough choices ARE required, mate... And the GOP
with President Trump on - is trying to be as cost-efficient
as possible... Originally Posted by Salty Again

They are? What "cost-efficiencies" are you referring to? Save for just a little bit of nibbling around the edges, it doesn't look to most of us like either party has any interest in cutting anything of substance. Canning a couple of tens of thousands of federal employees won't amount to more than a rounding error in the federal government's morbidly obese budget.

Not only do I think the tax rate percentage in the 7th bracket should go back to 39.6% , Corporate tax rate percentage should be increased from 20% to 25%. Try these two moves for a couple of years and see if the Federal Budget deficits are lowered. In 2009 the deficit was 1 Trillion. In 2016 Obama's last year in office the deficit was 585 Billion. The deficit has done nothing but gone up since. Originally Posted by adav8s28

Note that the deficit has skyrocketed because of huge spending binges; not tax cuts for the "rich" or for corporations. We have already noted in this forum that increasing the top-bracket personal income tax rate to the pre-2017 level of 39.6% would raise no more than about a penny of every deficit dollar. And raising the corporate tax rate from the current 21% to 25% would be a bad way to try to increase revenue, as then the rate would be significantly higher than the OECD average, which is now about where our current rate is. It also wouldn't reduce the deficit by more than a couple of percentage points, while rendering the US less competitive with its foreign competitors.

What it would do is warm the cockles of partisan Democrats' hearts. For many in the political class, that's the main goal!

Sadly, the "OBBBA" isn't a remotely serious attempt to deal in a responsible a long-term manner with our debt-accumulation challenges.

But neither is anything that's been proposed by Democrats' leadership; that's for dammed sure!

Nor republicans. You should add that to your”unbiased” analysis.

They are? What "cost-efficiencies" are you referring to? Save for just a little bit of nibbling around the edges, it doesn't look to most of us like either party has any interest in cutting anything of substance. Canning a couple of tens of thousands of federal employees won't amount to more than a rounding error in the federal government's morbidly obese budget.


Sadly, the "OBBBA" isn't a remotely serious attempt to deal in a responsible a long-term manner with our debt-accumulation challenges.

But neither is anything that's been proposed by Democrats' leadership; that's for dammed sure! Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

... But, at least President Trump has worked to reduce
government spending - whether Dems or Repubs want that.

... WHAT have the Dems done on the spending issue
over the last 40 years or so?

#### Salty

Nor republicans. You should add that to your”unbiased” analysis. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Excuse me, counselor. Didn't I make it clear that Republicans of recent years haven't been remotely serious about fiscal sustainability? Why yes, I certainly did!

Sadly, the "OBBBA" isn't a remotely serious attempt to deal in a responsible a long-term manner with our debt-accumulation challenges.

But neither is anything that's been proposed by Democrats' leadership; that's for dammed sure! Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Please get a grip Blackman. “Tiny and the ECCIE Fiscal Hawks” didn’t vote for the bill. And my vote in 2020 went to Chase Oliver.

I agree with Rand Paul, the bill sucks. Rand had the right idea, cut all federal programs by 7%, across the board. I might take a bigger chunk out of defense and leave aid to destitute countries intact, but those are just personal preferences.

Ideally it would have been good to see a flatter, much, much simpler tax system with lower rates and fewer loopholes. If that can’t happen, then at least do away with the QBI deduction for pass through businesses and capital gains treatment for performance fees realized by hedge and private equity funds.

As to personal rates, either leave them where they are now or revert to pre-2018 levels, for ALL taxpayers. Don’t continue with your party’s charade that there’s plenty to pay for everything our hearts desire if the rich would just pay their fair share. If you want universal health care, a minimum income, a chicken in every pot, etc., everybody’s going to have to pay up.

This country’s on an unsustainable course. It can’t continue with federal budget deficits of 6% or 7% of GDP for as far as the eye can see, even in peacetime, when the economy’s humming.

Your party is every bit or more responsible for the mess we’re in as the Republicans. At least when the Republicans cut taxes, the money stays in the pockets of hardworking Americans and boosts GDP. You guys on the other hand seem even more inclined than the Republicans to dish out the corporate pork in ways that contribute to economic inefficiency. And how about the signature legislation of the Biden presidency, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan (ARP)? That was shear idiocy. It ran up our national debt and what did we got for it? Eight percent inflation? Larry Summers agrees. The ARP was stupider than Trump's tariffs. Originally Posted by Tiny

Indeed! That's why it was so amusing to see Tiny, of all people, called out in the thread title and blasted for supposedly supporting anything in the way of massive debt increases.

How about a realty check? We're in the perilous fiscal situation we see today because of the grotesquely irresponsible spending binges of 2021-2022, when Democrats increased the trend baseline of annual deficit spending from an already overly bloated $1 trillion (in 2019) to a run rate of $2 trillion five years later -- and for no good reason, since the covid pandemic had faded away long before. And they succeeded in baking it in so that the big increases in federal spending would be painful to reverse without deep-sixing our overly-stimulated, debt-fueled economy. Therefore, the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer triumvirate set the nation on a course to add $10 trillion to our national debt over the upcoming 10-year period, relative to what would have been the case had they acted appropriately and done very little in the way of cramming through a bunch of fattening menu items on progressives' fantasy lists. (Actually, more than that, since no one expects the deficit to do anything but climb in the absence of meaningful action by congress.)

But I'll say this in your defense, Blackman. I mistakenly thought you were an enthusiastic partisan who almost certainly voted Biden/Harris in 2020. But now I realize that cannot possibly have been so, or by the reasoning expressed in your opening posts you would be kicking yourself mercilessly for supporting the creation of $10 trillion in new debt.

And then you would surely have posted a mea culpa!

Unfortunately, it will take a lot more than something celled a "Big, Beautiful Bill" that has support of only one party to even begin to reverse course. That would require leadership (from both parties!) and bipartisan compromise such as we used to see decades ago. (Nowadays? Good luck with that!)

I most certainly voted for Biden, though I’m far closer to Bill Clinton in ideology than Biden. If I had my choice I’d raise taxes and cut government spending pretty much across the board to get our house in order. So no apology coming because for many of the reasons that are currently happening I’d have never voted for more Trump, he was terrible the first time around and is amazingly, though not unexpectedly, worse this time around. Tiny and the others, you included, should be apologetic as hell since this current exacerbation of our fiscal woes, and likely will be worsening once the effects of the tariff economy set in, is totally on Trump and the Republicans.

What I don’t buy into is the silliness that folks like Tiny seems to have swallowed whole - that republicans have ever been fiscally responsible. Well they are when they demagogue the issue when it’s democrats in charge, but that’s disingenuous at best and political theater at worst.

I most certainly voted for Biden, though I’m far closer to Bill Clinton in ideology than Biden. If I had my choice I’d raise taxes and cut government spending pretty much across the board to get our house in order. So no apology coming because for many of the reasons that are currently happening I’d have never voted for more Trump, he was terrible the first time around and is amazingly, though not unexpectedly, worse this time around. Tiny and the others, you included, should be apologetic as hell since this current exacerbation of our fiscal woes, and likely will be worsening once the effects of the tariff economy set in, is totally on Trump and the Republicans.

What I don’t buy into is the silliness that folks like Tiny seems to have swallowed whole - that republicans have ever been fiscally responsible. Well they are when they demagogue the issue when it’s democrats in charge, but that’s disingenuous at best and political theater at worst.

Whoa! How did that happen? Rxdot agrees with me. I think I'm to put my entire IRA into some long shot IPA.

Trump exonmy at work

Year to date deficit 1.6trillion
July deficit 291billion

Government spending up 10%
Revenues expected to fall as a result of additional tax breaks and tariff start to kick in.

Trump exonmy at work

Year to date deficit 1.6trillion
July deficit 291billion

Government spending up 10%
Revenues expected to fall as a result of additional tax breaks and tariff start to kick in.

Excuse me, counselor. Didn't I make it clear that Republicans of recent years haven't been remotely serious about fiscal sustainability? Why yes, I certainly did!





Indeed! That's why it was so amusing to see Tiny, of all people, called out in the thread title and blasted for supposedly supporting anything in the way of massive debt increases.

How about a realty check? We're in the perilous fiscal situation we see today because of the grotesquely irresponsible spending binges of 2021-2022, when Democrats increased the trend baseline of annual deficit spending from an already overly bloated $1 trillion (in 2019) to a run rate of $2 trillion five years later -- and for no good reason, since the covid pandemic had faded away long before. And they succeeded in baking it in so that the big increases in federal spending would be painful to reverse without deep-sixing our overly-stimulated, debt-fueled economy. Therefore, the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer triumvirate set the nation on a course to add $10 trillion to our national debt over the upcoming 10-year period, relative to what would have been the case had they acted appropriately and done very little in the way of cramming through a bunch of fattening menu items on progressives' fantasy lists. (Actually, more than that, since no one expects the deficit to do anything but climb in the absence of meaningful action by congress.)

But I'll say this in your defense, Blackman. I mistakenly thought you were an enthusiastic partisan who almost certainly voted Biden/Harris in 2020. But now I realize that cannot possibly have been so, or by the reasoning expressed in your opening posts you would be kicking yourself mercilessly for supporting the creation of $10 trillion in new debt.

And then you would surely have posted a mea culpa!

Unfortunately, it will take a lot more than something celled a "Big, Beautiful Bill" that has support of only one party to even begin to reverse course. That would require leadership (from both parties!) and bipartisan compromise such as we used to see decades ago. (Nowadays? Good luck with that!) Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Snick!