'Tax Reform Is Hard. Keeping Tax Reform Is Harder': Highlights from the House Tax Cuts Hearing
The House Ways and Means Committee held a three-hour hearing Wednesday on the effects of the Republican tax overhaul. We tuned in so you wouldn’t have to.
As you might have expected, the hearing was mostly an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to exercise their messaging on the benefits or dangers of the new law, and for the experts testifying to disagree whether the gains from the law would outweigh the costs. But there was also some consensus that it’s still very early to try to gauge the effects of the law that was signed into effect by President Trump less than five months ago.
“I would emphasize that, despite all the high-quality economic research that’s been done, never before has the best economy on the planet moved from a worldwide system of taxation to a territorial system of taxation. There is no precedent,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “And in that way we do not really know the magnitude and the pace at which a lot of these [effects] will occur.”
Some key quotes from the hearing:
Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), ranking Democrat on the committee: “This was not tax reform. This was a tax cut for people at the top. The problem that Republicans hope Americans overlook is the law’s devastating impact on your health care. In search of revenue to pay for corporate cuts, the GOP upended the health care system, causing 13 million Americans to lose their coverage. For others, health insurance premiums will spike by at least 10 percent, which translates to about $2,000 a year of extra costs per year for a family of four. … These new health expenses will dwarf any tax cuts promised to American families. … The fiscal irresponsibility of their law is stunning. Over the next 10 years they add $2.3 trillion to the nation’s debt to finance tax cuts for people at the top – all borrowed money. … When the bill comes due, Republicans intend to cut funding for programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”
David Farr, chairman and CEO of Emerson, and chairman of the National Association of Manufacturers: “We recently polled the NAM members, and the responses heard back from them on the tax reform are very significant and extremely positive: 86 percent report that they’ve already planned to increase investments, 77 percent report that they’ve already planned to increase hiring, 72 percent report that they’ve already planned to increase wages or benefits.”
Holtz-Eakin: “No, tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. If they did there would be no additional debt from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and there is. The question is, is it worth it? Will the growth and the incentives that come from it be worth the additional federal debt. My judgment on that was yes. Reasonable people can disagree. … When we went into this exercise, there was $10 trillion in debt in the federal baseline, before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. There was a dangerous rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio. It was my belief, and continues to be my belief, that those problems would not be addressed in a stagnant, slow-growth economy. Those are enormously important problems, and we needed to get growth going so we can also take them on.”
“Quite frankly, it’s not going to be possible to hold onto this beneficial tax reform if you don’t get the spending side under control. Tax reform is hard. Keeping tax reform is harder, and the growth consequences of not fixing the debt outlook are entirely negative and will overwhelm what you’ve done so far.”
Steven Rattner: "We would probably all agree that increases in our national debt of these kinds of orders of magnitude have a number of deleterious effects. First, they push interest rates up. … That not only increases the cost of borrowing for the federal government, it increases the cost of borrowing for private corporations whose debt is priced off of government paper. Secondly, it creates additional pressure on spending inside the budget to the extent anyone is actually trying to control the deficit. … And thirdly, and in my view perhaps most importantly, it’s a terrible intergenerational transfer. We are simply leaving for our children additional trillions of dollars of debt that at some point are going to have to be dealt with, or there are going to have to be very, very substantial cuts in benefits, including programs like Social Security and Medicare, in order to reckon with that.”
Here’s Why Americans Are Keeping Their Cars Longer than Ever
As cars get more reliable Americans are holding onto their vehicles for longer than ever before. The average age of cars and light trucks is now 11.5 years old, according to a new report from IHS Automotive.
In addition to better reliability, cars are getting older because Americans bought far fewer new cars in the years following the Great Recession, as concerns lingered about unemployment and the strength of the economy.
Even as consumers have started purchasing new vehicles again, they’re still holding onto their older ones. The average length of ownership of a new vehicle reached 6.5 years in the first quarter of 2015, more than two years longer than in 2006. The number of cars more than 12 years old continues to grow and is expected to increase 15 percent by 2020.
Related: The Incredible Disappearing American-Made Car
IHS predicts that the average age of vehicles will inch up slightly over the next few years, hitting 11.7 years in 2018.
The number of cars on the road hit a record 258 million, posting a 2.1 percent increase over last year, driven by the purchase of new cars. IHS expects that volume of cars less than 5 years old will increase by 24 percent over the next five years.
Consumer sales of autos were on pace to rise 4.2 percent this month, according to TrueCar, compared to July of 2014, thanks to increased demand, summer sales events and the growing popularity of premium brands.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- Why Hillary Clinton’s Tax Plan to Soak Investors Won’t Work
- US Health Spending: $3.1 Trillion a Year and Growing
- Joe Biden: The Looming Threat to a Republican Presidency
The Most Expensive Cities for Singles -- and the Cheapest
Looking for love in all the pricey places? Check out these lists of the most and least expensive cities for singles before you go on that next date or plan your next move. Looking good doesn’t come cheap, and the price of a decent wardrobe and a gym membership add ups before you even step out the door.
To determine which cities were the least and most affordable for singles, GoBankingRates examined 89 cities and rated them according to four expense categories -- clothing, dates, gym memberships and rent -- using data from Numbeo.com. “Singles are more likely to exercise, and to have a gym membership,” says Elyssa Kirkham, a finance writer for GoBankingRates. “They’re more likely to rent than own a home, and spend more money on dates and clothing.”
Related: Hot New Dating Criteria: What’s Your Credit Score?
San Francisco is the most expensive city for singles, especially when it comes to rent. Rent is 30 percent more expensive in San Francisco than it is in Honolulu. The cost of a date here is $147, compared with the median cost of $109. California just might be the most expensive state to date in, claiming seven of the top 15 spots: San Francisco, Fremont, Glendale, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and Oakland.
The second most expensive city? New York City, which boasts the most expensive gym membership at $90 per month. Clothing costs here are the second-highest in the nation -- bad news for all the Carrie Bradshaws out there. And date night will set you back $145.
The most expensive date night in the country is in Washington, D.C., which came in third overall. Date night in our nation’s capital costs $166 for dinner, a bottle of wine, two movie tickets and a 10-mile taxi ride. Compare that to Chattanooga, Tennessee, which had the cheapest date night at $78.
Looking for more bang for your buck? Move to Reno, Nevada. Rent here is just 86 cents per square foot, and a night out averages $97.30. Keep in mind, though, that “the Biggest Little City in the World” was once known as the divorce capital of the world, so dating there may offer less promise than other locales.
Related: The Bad News About All the Singles in America
Most Expensive Cities for Singles
- San Francisco
- New York
- Washington, D.C.
- Honolulu
- Boston
- Fremont, California
- Glendale, California
- Anchorage, Alaska
- Miami
- Seattle
- Irvine, California
- Los Angeles
- San Diego
- Oakland, California
- Madison, Wisconsin
Related: Marriage?? Young Americans Aren’t Even Shacking Up
15 Cheapest Cities for Singles
- Reno, Nevada
- Tucson, Arizona
- Grand Rapids, Michigan
- Tacoma, Washington
- Indianapolis
- Mesa, Arizona
- Little Rock, Arkansas
- Albuquerque, New Mexico
- Huntsville, Alabama
- Memphis, Tennessee
- St. Louis, Missouri
- Jackson, Mississippi
- Stockton, California
- Omaha, Nebraska
- Chattanooga, Tennessee
Donald Trump Isn’t as Rich as He Says…but He’s Still Pretty Rich
“I’m really rich,” Donald Trump boasted last month when he announced he was running for president. A new analysis by Bloomberg confirms that claim, but finds that the real estate mogul and presidential candidate is worth about $7 billion less than he claims.
When he announced his presidential bid, Trump touted a net worth of about $8.7 billion, a figure that soon ballooned to $10 billion. But Bloomberg calculates his wealth closer to around $2.9 billion. The Bloomberg Billionaires Index, a daily ranking of the world’s biggest fortunes, arrived at the value using both prior-known information and a 92-page personal disclosure form that Trump filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Related: 7 Revelations from Donald Trump’s Financial Disclosure
The federal form that all presidential candidates are required to submit asks only for broad ranges in asset values, not specific sums. Anything above $50 million in value is lumped together in one category, which in Trump’s case left plenty of room for questions about just how valuable some of his assets are. The federal report also doesn’t require candidates to list personal property like art, clothing or real estate that’s for his own use.
The Bloomberg analysis went into much more depth, using figures such as purchase dates, square footage, rental rates and more.
The disclosure form revealed that most of Trump’s fortune comes from real estate holdings, such as the Trump Doral resorts in Florida and Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York City. Other lucrative properties include premier golf courses in the U.S., Ireland and Scotland.
Related: Donald Trump Just Showed Why His Campaign Is Doomed
Trump had valued his golf and resort properties at $2 billion. Bloomberg, using price-to-sales ratios for similar properties, put the value at a combined $570 million.
The Bloomberg methodology also doesn’t put much value in the Trump brand, counting only the cash being held as part of licensing or other business deals. “Trump’s own estimations,” Bloomberg noted, “include much higher values for his brand.”
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- Huckabee Trounces Trump in the Shameless Shock Game
- You’re Richer Than You Think. Really.
- 15 Facts You Didn’t Know About Donald Trump
In a Black Eye for Wearable Tech, Nike Giving Refunds for FuelBand
If you thought that the calorie count and steps tracked by your Nike FuelBand were inaccurate, you may have been right.
Nike and Apple have agreed to settle a class action lawsuit claiming that the companies made misleading statements regarding the product’s ability to accurately track calories and steps, according to a website maintained by settlement administrator Gilardi & Co.
The companies have denied the allegations and claim they broke no laws, but they have agreed to a settlement in which Nike will give consumers who join the class action suit by January $15 or a $25 Nike gift card. The total cost of the refunds could reach more than $2 million.
Related: Why No One is Actually Buying Wearable Tech
Anyone who purchased a FuelBand from January 19, 2012 through June 17, 2015 is eligible for the refund.
Last year, Nike began shifting its focus away from producing FuelBands, choosing instead to focus on apps, including one for the Apple watch, that support fitness tracking. The company has said it has more than 60 million digital fitness software users.
The FuelBand was an early entrant into what has become a crowded field or wearable fitness trackers, despite questions about their accuracy. However smart watches, which offer built-in fitness trackers along with other apps, may soon eclipse the demand for that standalone products.
A report released last year by tech analysts Juniper Research projected that revenue from wearable tech, would increase from $4.5 billion in 2014 to more than $53 billion in 2019.
Sweet, Sour, Salty and...Fat? Scientists Add a New Basic Taste
The thousands of taste buds on a human tongue each contain as many as 100 taste receptors. The interaction between those receptors and the chemicals in our food determine the taste of that hamburger or salad you’re having for lunch.
Our sense of taste has long been broken into four basic categories — sour, sweet, salty and bitter. A fifth basic taste was added more recently: umami, which means “delicious” in Japanese but refers to a meaty or savory flavor sensation. Now researchers claim there’s a sixth basic taste.
Scientists at Purdue University have published a new study in the journal Chemical Sense that they say provides evidence that chemicals called nonesterified fatty acids (NEFA) — in other words, fat — causes a taste sensation that is different from the other five tastes. The researchers have proposed that the new taste be referred to as “oleogustus.” “Oleo” is the root word for oily or fatty in Latin and “gustus” means taste.
Related: The 11 Worst Fast Food Restaurants in America
The researchers emphasize that they are talking about a taste, not just the creamy mouth feel you get from eating a rich piece of meat or a dish loaded in butter.
The fat that delivers that creamy, smooth feeling is a triglyceride, made up of three different fatty acids, they explain. Oleogustus — a gag-inducing taste on its own, but much more appetizing in combination with other flavors — comes from only one of those fatty acids that breaks off from the larger molecule in the food or as you’re chewing.
This finding has the potential to generate big changes in the food industry. Understanding the taste component of fat can do more than add to our knowledge of how our brain and digestive system interact. It may also help the food industry create more appealing, and potentially healthier, products.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- Teens Are Having Much Less Sex Than Their Parents Did at That Age
- You’re Richer Than You Think. Really.
- The New Generation of ‘Genuinely Creepy’ Electronic Devices