- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Mulvaney: deficit-neutral tax changes insufficient for growth, we need new deficits
Posted on 10/3/17 at 10:35 am
Posted on 10/3/17 at 10:35 am
quote:
If we simply look at this as being deficit-neutral, you’re never going to get the type of tax reform and tax reductions that you need to get to sustain 3 percent economic growth.
quote:
I’ve been very candid about this. We need to have new deficits because of that.
Does this matter?
3
Posted on 10/3/17 at 10:38 am to 90proofprofessional
It only matters to Republicans when a Democrat is in the White House, and vice versa.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 10:38 am to 90proofprofessional
Cut taxes as low as we can get passed
Posted on 10/3/17 at 10:44 am to 90proofprofessional
Is Mulvaney being misunderstood here?
That is, static analysis leads to deficits though the 10 year period whereas dynamic scoring with 3.0% growth leads to larger deficits early but smaller deficits later and overall lower to neutral deficits 10 years later?
That is, static analysis leads to deficits though the 10 year period whereas dynamic scoring with 3.0% growth leads to larger deficits early but smaller deficits later and overall lower to neutral deficits 10 years later?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:03 am to GumboPot
quote:
Is Mulvaney being misunderstood
that doesn't sound like what he's saying here, since the relevant hurdle for them is the 10-year window. and cbo uses dynamic by rule on major legislative changes like this, or if requested by a budget committee chairman
sounds like he's pretty clearly talking about what kind of thing needs to happen to achieve 3%. the growth assumption is the basis for faster revenue growth in the dynamic score, but the growth assumption itself actually needs to be plausible to begin with.
it does seem to follow that he thinks even with the assumption of 3% sustained, 10-year deficit-neutral isn't actually attainable from tax cuts. and that seems likely correct to me
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News