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


(Pixabay)

 

 

 

 

 

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.

2 hours ago

Ryan Blaney wins Talladega Superspeedway’s 1000Bulbs(dot)com 500 in photo finish

It took 27 hours to get from the green flag to the checkered flag, but when it was all said and done, Ryan Blaney, the driver of Team Penske’s No. 12 Ford Mustang, earned the win on Monday afternoon in the 1000Bulbs.com 500 at Talladega Superspeedway.

Blaney edged out veteran NASCAR driver Ryan Newman by a margin of .007 seconds, which is reportedly only the sixth-closest Talladega margin of victory ever.

The win advances Blaney in the Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series’ playoff to determine the 2019 champion.

234

“We got together a little coming through the trioval,” Blaney said of his run for the start-finish line with Newman. “He pushed me below the yellow line, but I wasn’t going below there after what happened in the truck race.”

Blaney was referring to Saturday’s Gander Outdoors Truck Series at Talladega, when Johnny Sauter lost the win after being ruled out of bounds by NASCAR and demoted from first to the last truck on the lead lap.

“Now we don’t have to worry about next week,” Blaney explained, given that he advances in the championship hunt by virtue of his race win. “We can go and fight for another win.”

The race did not end without the traditional “big one” crash. Brendan Gaughan, driver of the No. 62 Chevrolet launched into the air during the escapade.

@Jeff_Poor is a graduate of Auburn University, the editor of Breitbart TV and host of “The Jeff Poor Show” from 2-5 p.m. on WVNN in Huntsville.

3 hours ago

Rick Karle: Saban has a point about ‘rat poison’; Let’s start calling Bama players mediocre

There’s no need to tell you that the Alabama Crimson Tide are playing great football — and one of the best ways to tell that coach Nick Saban knows it as well?

He uttered those two familiar words: “Rat poison.”

It was two years ago when these words went viral, as Saban attempted to squelch the rave reviews about his players that were coming from the media.

His message?

93

If his players kept hearing that they were great, they’d believe it — and those words could act as rat poison to his team.

A few days ago, Saban brought up the words again, this time after his team beat the Aggies 47-28.

What does this all mean? Allow me to explain as I’m coming in hot, giving you my take!

Watch:

Rick Karle is a 24-time Emmy winning broadcaster and a special sports contributor to Yellowhammer News. He is also the host of the Huts and Nuts podcast.

4 hours ago

Ivey announces ID Plastics to open manufacturing operation in Auburn, creating 50 jobs

Governor Kay Ivey announced Monday that ID Plastics LP, a manufacturer of a variety of technical plastic products, is set to open its first operation in Auburn, investing $9.8 million.

“Our continued efforts and partnerships with local communities have led to another great manufacturer coming to Alabama,” Ivey said. “ID Plastics’ decision to select Alabama will create 50 jobs for families in East Alabama over the next three years.”

At first, the company will produce the ID PACK sleeve, a foldable, returnable transportation container system used in various industries.

312

A press release noted, “Brothers Martin and Andreas Hartl formed the Alabama-based business operation with the plan to bring various products of their companies, DUROtherm Plastics, a thermoforming specialist, and the Infinex Group, an extrusion specialist, to a production center in the U.S. The two companies are headquartered in the Black Forest in Southwest Germany and have approximately 600 employees.”

“Transport containers have always had downsides of one kind or another,” Martin Hartl said. “We responded with an innovative collapsing container system that eliminates these problems. The ID PACK is a truly problem-free sleeve pack system.”

Andreas Hart also discussed his vision for the company as it relates to the parts and manufacturing required.

“German technology made in the U.S.A. with state-of-the-art, customer-oriented manufacturing — that’s the perfect combination, the way we see it,” Hart said. “This was the foundation for the ID PACK collapsible container system and the big advantages it offers in a wide range of logistics applications.”

Auburn Mayor Ron Anders expressed his support for the German operation in a statement.

“We are grateful to be the U.S. headquarters and manufacturing location for ID Plastics,” Anders said. “Through our partnership with Auburn University, Southern Union Community College and our existing industries, the City of Auburn has created an excellent environment for technology-based, value-added manufacturing operations like ID Plastics. We welcome Andreas and Martin to the Auburn family.”

Greg Canfield, secretary of the Alabama Department of Commerce, released a statement on the project and reflected on the strong economic ties between Alabama and the German industry.

“German companies have directed around $10 billion in new capital investment to Alabama in the past two decades because these companies have learned they can find success in our state,” Canfield said. “We welcome ID Plastics and look forward to helping another German business enterprise prosper in Alabama.”

Kyle Morris also contributes daily to Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter @RealKyleMorris.

4 hours ago

Mondays for Moms: Confessions of a fluorescent mac-n-cheese lover

What happened to the days when we could saunter down the aisles of the grocery store without being bombarded with 500 options for each item in the store?

Organic. Non-dairy. GMO-free. No artificial flavors. Lite. Fat-free. Gluten-free. Taste-free.

My head is spinning.

Retailers should start labeling packages with the following disclaimer: “Will need nutritionist to assist with purchase.”

811

Instead of greeters, could nutritionists begin to welcome us at the entrance of the grocery store and offer to accompany us down the aisles?

And while we’re on this topic, could someone for the love of Jesus and all the goodness in the world explain to me what the heck GMOs are? Are they kin to UFOs? Is it a military operative slogan? Are they little cancer pellets hidden away in every bite of my Cheetos? I’m getting worried over here. If you can provide some useful information, could you shoot me a quick message at HelpErinUnderstandGMOs@gmail.com? This is real; send help. Thanks in advance.

Seriously, why can’t we go in the store and throw two boxes of Cheerios, a couple gallons of milk and a box of the latest flavor of Oreos in our carts without enduring relentless stares from other shoppers? Rather than accosting the produce stocker about the origination and growth habits of Hass avocados, you will find me filling my cart with items that do not require such intense, interrogative research. You know items we’ve all been existing on since the beginning of time.

Confession: I’m the momma that occasionally serves up hot dogs and dinosaur-shaped chicken tenders. You know why? Because my kids love them.

I’m going to be real with you guys for a second. My momma, bless her sweet soul, fed me Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, M&M’s and orange soda. And guess what? I’m still alive! With the exception of the obligatory seasonal cold, I’m kickin’ it just fine, folks.

Pre high-fructose-corn-syrup-hysteria, our world was such a wonderful place. We reveled in our blissful ignorance and we survived. We made it. The corn syrup centaurs didn’t come devour us in our sleep, people!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I haven’t seen a scientifically backed theory indicating that occasional hot dog consumption leads directly to immediate death. But please send that report in if I’m missin’ it.

Get prepared to gasp because I’m not done yet. I’ve also got mac-n-cheese in the ole pantry, too! And, no, not the organic-handmade-by-tiny-food-angels kind. Nope. No way. Not up in here! If you open my cupboard, you are going to find the glorious, fluorescent, glow-in-the-dark orange kind that we all fell in love with in our dorm rooms decades ago. You know, the kind we now crave at 2:00 a.m. after waking up to the baby monitor a few times.

All joking aside, I do think that nutrition is very important. And I completely agree with teaching our kids about the importance of clean eating, healthy food boundaries and coaching them towards a life of fitness.

But I think we walk a fine line. I’m all about providing our babies with the healthiest food options available, but let’s do so without engaging in discussions that result in righteous condemnation.

To the precious mommas who manage to serve pediatric-approved meals on your tables three times a day, you are awesome and superhuman. Could you help a sister out? Show me your ways. And, if any of you wants to write a book summarizing all of these “uber-healthy” options exposing all the superfoods in a graph-like format for ease of reference, that’d be great. (Quick request: provide a dictionary in the back.) I’ll be your first buyer.

Rather than tormenting over the origination of the foods that enter our children’s bodies, let’s spend time focusing on the words they hear, the things they see and the places they go. If we spend more time focusing on that version of input in our child’s lives, we will be doing them and our world a much greater service.

There’s a lesson to be learned here: Consumption is vital. Nutritional, spiritual, emotional, all of it. But I’m afraid we are spending so much time diagramming the sugar content of granola bars, that we are neglecting to measure the growth habits or our children’s patience, kindness and respect for others.

In our final days, it’s not going to matter how many marathons our babies ran or how awesome their homemade compost piles were in their backyards.

What will matter is the lasting legacy they leave and the lives they touched while here on this earth.

So, pardon me if I chunk a few fluorescent mac-n-cheese buckets in my buggy as I saunter through the pasta aisle. No harm. No foul.  Just placing my primary focus on a tad bit different intake at our house.

To receive encouragement and read more about thriving rather than simply surviving in motherhood, check out Erin’s book, Cheers the Diaper Years: 10 Truths for Thriving While Barely Surviving here.

Erin Brown Hollis is Yellowhammer’s lifestyle contributor and host of Yellowhammer Podcast Network’s “Cheers to That” podcast. An author, speaker, lawyer, wife and mother of two, she invites you to grab a cup as she toasts the good in life, love and motherhood. Follow Erin on Instagram ErinBrownHollis or Twitter @ErinBrownHollis

5 hours ago

Mo Brooks: Trump is trying to put an end to endless war

U.S. Representative Mo Brooks (R-Huntsville) has a clear approach to the evolving situation in Syria: Leave it alone.

Brooks’ premise is that both Turkey and the Kurds are American allies, so getting involved on either side puts us in conflict with the other.

During a Monday interview on WVNN’s “The Dale Jackson Show,” Brooks explained that this situation was seemingly inevitable, saying, “I wish that the Turks and the Kurds would get along peacefully, but they have got ill-will harboring and simmering for at least a hundred years.

419

He added, “To me, it was inevitable that whenever America reduced its presence in the Middle East, as we should, because we cannot afford to be the police cop on every corner, that violence would break out.”

The congressman acknowledged the role that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy played in the current situation, especially in the creation of ISIS. This is the same argument Trump used in 2016 and the then-candidate promised to end our “endless wars.”

Brooks went on to say that America does not need to involve itself in these issues any longer.

“I support any kind of decision to reduce our presence in these countries that do not appreciate our loss of life, our financial expenditures, in their countries,” he explained.

Brooks acknowledged this could be a situation the United States has to revisit in the future, but warned of a “war caucus that wants to be more aggressive int he Turk/Kurd fight.

“We’ve got a ‘war caucus,’ for lack of a better term, that does believe that the United States of America should be the cop on every corner of the planet, no matter the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, no matter that every penny we spend on these efforts is borrowed money, money we can’t afford to pay back,” he advised.

My takeaway:

Again, Trump made this clear and Brooks appears to agree: We can’t afford to keep doing this forever. Even the most adamant war hawks from the post-9/11 period think we have been at this long enough. Many seem to see little more to gain from new and prolonged conflicts.

The president made it a campaign promise to end these foreign wars, and he is following through on that promise.

Like in everything else, he will be opposed by both sides of the political aisle. No matter what the president does, it has to be wrong — even if nobody else has any better solutions to offer.

But that does not make him wrong.

Do any of the Democratic presidential candidates advocate re-entering Syria if they win? How about sending more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Only time will tell how this decision affects American interests. But unless something drastically changes in the region, we are better off by letting those with regional interests handle the issues in the Middle East.

Listen:

Dale Jackson is a contributing writer to Yellowhammer News and hosts a talk show from 7-11 am weekdays on WVNN