According to Senator [score]Rand Paul [/score](R-KY), “real men (as well as pull-no-punches women) cut taxes.”
I’m really glad the Senator added the bit about ‘pull-no-punches women.’ If he had left it at ‘real men,’ it would have been offensive on so many levels. Feminists and transgender people would be outraged. “What do you mean ‘real men?’ As opposed to ‘fake men?’ News flash, Senator, gender is a social construct!”
Of course, the way he has it now is actually not much better. He’s got the ‘pull-no-punches women’ in parentheses. As if they’re secondary or worthy only of ‘honorable mention.’ If I were a feminist or a member of the LGBT, I’d easily find a way to still get my panties in a bunch.
Thankfully, I’m not either, so I can read beyond Senator Paul’s first sentence.
Last week, President Trump had promised that this week he would release his tax reform plan. He said that they would include yuuuge tax cuts, saying they’d be “bigger I believe than any tax cut ever.”
Senator Rand Paul’s concern is that while Trump’s heart is obviously in the right direction, he might be swayed by the Washington establishment to settle only for ‘revenue-neutral tax cuts,’ which Paul explains aren’t actually tax cuts:
Let me translate that little bit of Washington-speak for you. ‘Revenue neutral’ tax cuts aren’t really tax cuts. It’s more like tax shifting. Some will pay more. Some will pay less. And the net effect will be that government will collect the same amount of taxes.
If revenue neutral tax shifting is what Republicans stand for, maybe it’s time we re-evaluated what we really stand for.
What will “revenue neutral” tax cut mean to your business? Well, that may depend on how expensive your lobbyist is. Which side of the “revenue-neutral” ledger you wind up on may depend on how well the skids are greased, hardly, a pleasant scenario to anticipate.
His concern is not unfounded. Trump’s own chief economic advisor Gary Cohn – a registered Democrat and former Goldman Sachs president – is advising the president to agree to revenue-neutral, deficit-neutral tax cuts.
Back in March, Cohn said in an interview with CNBC, “We care about the deficit. We care about revenue.” He added: “We’re going to have to be deficit-neutral over a 10-year period. Yes, we’re going to be able to use dynamic scoring.”
And he’s not the only one. Many prominent Republicans are advocating for revenue-neutral, deficit-neutral tax cuts.
Rand Paul called on the President to learn from the GOP’s Obamacare repeal mistake, namely that Washington politicians overcomplicate things. “I urge the President to go big and bold,” Paul said. “But also to go simple”:
First, cut the corporate tax rate. Ours is now the highest in the world at 35 percent. We should immediately cut it to 15 percent or less, putting us in line with other countries. Money and business go where they’re welcome, and right now, that’s not the United States. We can change that, and do it easily, while creating millions of new jobs. At that low rate, we can also eliminate deductions and loopholes, and make the tax simple and fair.
American regulatory and tax treatment of business has in recent years led to major corporations moving overseas or leaving their overseas profits offshore. Currently, they are double taxed, with a 35 percent penalty for bringing this money home. I authored a bipartisan bill last year to allow repatriation of that capital at 6.5 percent, bringing home as much as 2 trillion in capital for job growth, and increased revenue. (My bill would direct that revenue into an infrastructure fund).
Finally, we must make sure every income level receives a cut, and that small businesses organized under various parts of the tax code get the benefit of the corporate tax cut.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com