Tax reform explained: How it helps our culture, our families, our economics

 

 

 

 

 

Listen to the 10 min audio

Read the transcript:

TOM LAMPRECHT:  Harry, it was last Wednesday President Donald Trump said the American worker received a great Christmas present. He was talking about the new tax bill legislation that was passed. Analysis says legislation could increase the national GDP by 1.7 percent and wages could see a bump by 1.5 percent.

THE TAX REFORM GOAL

DR. REEDER: The Republicans in the Senate rise or fall with this and the Democrats now are on record as having voted against, en masse, a tax credit and tax simplification plan. Certainly, that will become fodder in the next election if the tax plan succeeds – and it’s the kind of tax plan that you’ll start getting the feedback pretty quickly on it.

Let’s take a look at it, Tom. The original idea was to get the seven tax brackets down to three or five. That did not happen, yet they did lower rates in every single tax bracket, but they also took away deductions at the same time in an effort to simplify and the idea was some of these deductions that only the rich can take advantage of, either by being able to secure lawyers who are competent to do it and tax experts that they can take advantage of it so, in that sense, the deduction reductions were supposed to be middle class and lower class-friendly.

And the idea was to put it on a postcard – right now, the figure’s being used that over 90 percent will go to the postcard and the reason why is because the deductions available have been reduced in terms of these intricate deductions and they focused in on things like child adoption, marriage, that there are either tax credits or deductions associated with that.

HOW THIS HELPS CULTURE

Now whether it’ll be over 90 percent or not, as it’s being claimed, I don’t know. They’ve doubled the marriage benefit and they’ve doubled the child tax credit. Behind that, now from a Christian world and life view, of course, I applaud that because, A.), it is a step toward removing the penalties on those who are married and, B.), it is a step toward supporting marriage, which is best for the next generation.

Yes, a single parent is going to have a challenge in this, but there are other remedies available to the single parent. However, those who are cohabitating without marriage and have children, this will be quite a hit on their pocketbook which, again, encourages marriage, which is, I believe, a good thing in our society.

Properly developed and prepared marriages is a good thing and so a tax system that encourages family structure, I believe, is good and this one does, undoubtedly, encourage the family structure and so I would strongly encourage that.

TOM LAMPRECHT: Yeah, Harry, it is interesting because, for years and years, we heard the complaint that there was a marriage penalty and many critics of this new tax plan are coming out and saying, “Whoa, this is not fair. There’s now a penalty against people that are cohabitating that are not married.” Yet, at the same time, we see the family structure and, in certain demographics, that there’s an absentee of fatherhood and there’s been correlations drawn together that that equals troubled young men that are growing up in our society.

DR. REEDER: Exactly. Let me navigate back to my statement. I’m grateful it encourages the family structures – no longer a penalty, there’s now an incentive to marriage, which is better for the next generation. It has been proven that children need fathers and mothers in their life and they need the stability of a family, not two people cohabitating while it is convenient and then they walk apart and now kids don’t have a family structure to be raised in or people that it costs them to be married.

HOW THIS HELPS ECONOMICALLY

When you get to the economic side, it is estimated that this will, “cost the government $1.5 trillion” in the final analysis of revenue, but the government says, in the dynamic scoring, it would actually end up in a positive. If you have a 1.8 increase in the GDP, revenue side of that will more than make up for the $1.5 trillion loss.

We’ve already seen immediately upon the passage of this, dozens of companies – I mean, big name companies – gave $1,000.00 bonuses to their workers, made certain promises and, in some cases, in the process of building new corporate structures that they were going to build overseas and, in some cases, begin the process of moving them back. They also created an incentive for the offshore money to be brought back, which is in the trillions and trillions of dollars.

They also, because of the efforts of a couple senators such as Senator Langford and Senator Lee and Senator Rubio and others, they were able to restore the adoption assistance which, again, is family friendly. Kids that don’t have families, now there is help for those who go through the enormous price tag, which is anywhere from $20,000.00 to $50,000.00 to get through all the regulations for adoption.

Their point is, “We can’t remove the regulations because we want to make sure kids get in good homes, but we can give some support – some tax relief – to those who are going through that process,” and that was put back in place as well.

Another thing that was done, Tom, is that they doubled the amount before any tax is placed upon estate inheritance. I abhor the “death tax.” I think you’ve already taxed that money once and I don’t think it’s fair to tax it again. I think it’s the government just saying, “We’ve got the power to do it and we’re going to get you twice.”

WHO TAX REFORM HURTS

There’s a basic approval of the tax reform, but when you go and ask people do they approve it on an individual basis, there is a negative response. It’s almost 2 out of every 3 say, “I don’t like the tax package because it hurts me.”

Well, it does hurt people. No. 1, fewer people are getting married and it does hurt them. Almost everybody loses some pet deduction that they had worked into their system. What they don’t take the time to look at is, “Yes, you can go to this simplified system now. Yes, you lost some deductions, but your rates are being lowered and these valid credits are being put into place.” With the rates being lowered and these deductions and credits in place, what happens now is, actually, you don’t need to go to this intricate system of deductions. And, by the way, you don’t even need to hire as many tax lawyers and accountants as you used to, either.

WHAT ABOUT THE SPENDING?

From a Christian world and life view, I’m always for a limited government. People say, “Well, they didn’t reduce spending.” Tom, it has proven out under President Reagan, a Republican, and President Kennedy, a Democrat, when they went through this tax restructuring and reform, there was a drastic impact on the income of the government because of the increased activity economically.

There is one view that, “The government deserves the money and we’ll see what we want to give you back. And, by the way, there’s a pie and we need to cut it up and the government ought to get the biggest cut so that it can redistribute wealth.”

The other group says, “No, let’s let people redistribute wealth. The government has certain functions, so let’s tax to get those functions done. Otherwise, let’s let people keep their own money.” And, when you do, not only do we divide up the pie, the people will actually make more pies.

WHY THIS IS A STEP FORWARD

Therefore, from a Christian world and life view, I support it because it’s a step forward – not complete, by any means – a step forward on limited government affirming that people own their money, not the government, a step forward in supporting the family structure, a step forward in affirming something we desperately need and that is the adoption ministry that our government ought to have in place, a step forward of simplification so that people can understand what’s going on at least a little bit more clearly – more or less can understand – and it is a step forward toward creation of wealth instead of redistribution of wealth.

For those reasons, I would support what is being done. What I am hoping is it’s going to be such a significant step forward that other things that need to be done will yet be done and somehow, out there, there can be an effort to deal with the issue of budgeting and, dare I open up a box – and I am at the age that it’s okay for me to open this box – the “entitlement pieces.”

And I don’t just see them as entitlement because people paid into Social Security, but I believe it would be fair to put a reform in that raises the age of receiving it commensurate with the rising age of life expectancy. It was established back in the ‘30s and modified once since then in light of life expectancy at one age and that has clearly risen and so I think it would be appropriate that people would begin to collect those things at a later date.

If nothing else, at least that would be a step forward in reigning in the spending area. Now, speaking of the spending area, something that’s going to affect the spending area, Tom, is the President’s Security Speech and let’s take a look at that tomorrow.

Dr. Harry L. Reeder III is the Senior Pastor of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.

This podcast was transcribed by Jessica Havin. Jessica is editorial assistant for Yellowhammer News. Jessica has transcribed some of the top podcasts in the country and her work has been featured in a New York Times Bestseller.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS