Trump’s possible tax cuts would benefit most Americans: Grover Norquist


WE WANT TO RATCHET THAT UP. MARIA: . WE WANT TO BRING IN GROVER NORCHRIS. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE L. YOU’RE HEARING THE CONVERSATION. WEIGH IN HERE. THE PRESIDENT IS WEIGHING OPTIONS TO SPUR THE ECONOMY LIKE POTENTIAL CAPITAL GAINS TAX, LIKE A POTENTIAL PAYROLL TAX. WHAT’S YOUR VIEW.>>HE PUT TWO THINGS ON THE TABLE. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM IS THAT INDEXING CAPITAL GAINS SO YOU DON’T TAX INFLATION IN CAPITAL GAINS CAN BE DONE UNILATERALLY BY THE PRESIDENT. THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT IN 120002. SO — 2002. SO THAT’S NO LONGER A LEGAL QUESTION. THE PRESIDENT SAID YESTERDAY I CAN DO THIS MYSELF. THE TREASURY SECRETARY COULD DO THAT. THE ADVANTAGE THERE IS ONCE YOU DO IT, HALF OF AMERICANS PLUS OWN HOME, HALF OF AMERICANS PLUS ARE IN THE STOCK MARKET. YOU CAN’T ARGUE THIS IS A TAX CUT FOR THE 1%. IT’S A TAX CUT FOR EVERYBODY OVER 55 WHO HAS HELD HOMES AND HOUSES AND AN IMMEDIATE TAX CUT, VERY QUICKLY, BENEFITS ANYONE WHO IS 2 A 5 AND STARTING THEIR LIFE BECAUSE THEIR ASSETS ARE WORTH MORE. IF YOU GO WITH A TAX CUT ON SOCIAL SECURITY AS A SUGGESTION, THE DEMOCRATS IMMEDIATELY GO SURE, WE’LL PAY FOR IT BY RAISING THE BUSINESS TAX, THROW IT RIGHT BACK. SO BECAUSE NANCY PELOSI HAS TO AGREE TO ANY CHANGE IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY TAX AND THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NEVER DONE THAT WHEN THEY HAD THE POWER TO DO IT, THEY WOULD JUST PLAY POLITICS WITH IT. THE PRESIDENT WILL LIKELY GO WITH THE THING WHERE THE INFLATION INDEXATION — HE CAN DO THAT BY HIMSELF WITHOUT NANCY PELOSI’S PERMISSION.>>HEY, GROVER, STEVE MOORE HERE. GREAT TO SEE YOU.>>HI, STEVE.>>LOOK, YOU SOUND VERY CONFIDENT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE UNILATERAL AUTHORITY TO DO THIS AND HE HAS THE LEGAL — THAT SEEMS TO BE AN OPEN QUESTION. I WANT TO DIG IN, GET YOUR REACTION TO — BECAUSE YOU SEEM LIKE IT’S AN OPEN AND SHUT DEAL THAT HE CAN DO THIS. I KNOW THE DEMOCRATS WOULD PROBABLY CHALLENGE THAT. SO THAT NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THAT IDEA OF INDEXING CAPITAL GAINS TAX AND TELL ME IF I’M WRONG ABOUT THIS IS YOU GET AN UNLOCKING EFFECT. NOW PEOPLE COULD SELL THEIR STOCKS AND MOVE INTO YOU NEW COMPANIES AND NEW INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES. WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THAT. MARIA: BY THE WAY, BEFORE YOU GET THERE, YOU SAY COULD HE DO IT, DON’T FORGET, OBAMA INDICT. THE PAYROLL TAX WAS CUT UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IN 2011 AND 2012 TO 4.2%, REDUCING TAXES BY MORE THAN $100 BILLION EACH YEAR. IT WAS ENACTED TO ENCOURAGE MORE CONSUMER SPENDING.>>THE QUESTION IS CAN THE PRESIDENT DO IT WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. THAT’S THE ISSUE ON THE TABLE.>>LET’S TAKE THAT IN THE ORDER IN WITH WHICH YOU ASKED. ONE, CAN THE PRESIDENT DO IT. THERE WAS A DEBATE ON THIS IN 1992 AND SOME SERIOUS LAWYERS SAID ABSOLUTELY — LIKE CHUCK COOPER, OTHERS SAID WE’RE NOT SO SURE. SINCE THEN THERE WAS A SUPREME COURT DECISION IN 2002 WHICH ANSWERED THE ONLY QUESTION BEFORE, IS COST AN UNAMBIGUOUS TERM THAT AN AGENCY CANNOT ADJUST. THEY SAY IT COULD BE HISTORIC COST, WHAT DID YOU PAY FOURTH, REAL FOAL FORL FOR IT,REAL OF COST, COST PLUS INFLATION, AND REPLACEMENT COST. THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO DECIDE WHICH ONE TO USE. THE SUPREME COURT SMACKED AWAY HARD ANY DEBATE. SOME PEOPLE THINK THE COURTS, A MORE CONSERVATIVE COURT MIGHT WANT TO REDUCE THE ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. A MONTH AGO WE HAD A DECISION THAT SAID NOPE, WE’RE NOT DOING THAT. SO TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS COME IN THAT SAY AGENCIES HAVE THIS AUTHORITY. THEY HAVE THIS AND COST SPECIFICALLY IS NOT AN UNAMBIGUOUS TERM. THAT’S WHY WE CAN SAY WITH CLARITY THAT THEY’LL POLITICALLY WINE PLNE PLIGHTWHINE ABOUT IT BUT NOT HAV PLIGHTWHINE ABOUT IT BUT NOT HAE SUCCESS. THE BIG BENEFIT RIGHT AWAY IS ONE CEO, FORTUNE 500 CEO TOLD ME THERE’S $7 TRILLION OF STICKY CAPITAL WHICH IS LAND, BUILDINGS, OTHER COMPANIES THAT CORPORATIONS ALONE, NEVER MIND INDIVIDUALS WHO OWN HOMES AND STOCKS BUT CORPORATIONS OWN $7 TRILLION OF STICKY CAPITAL MUCH OF WHICH WOULD BE SOLD. IN FACT, ALMOST ALL OF WHICH WOULD BE SOLD WHEN YOU’RE LOOKING AT THINGS THAT ARE FIVE, 10, 20, A 50 YEARS OLD. THAT WOULD RAISE A LOT OF REVENUE IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AND TAKE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND REDIRECT IT TO HIGHER AND BETTER USE. IT’S DEREGULATION FOR PAST PURCHASES OF ASSETS AND IT RAISES THE VALUE OF ALL ASSETS IN THE UNITED STATES NOW GOING FORWARD. THE ONE COMPANY THAT CALLED ME ABOUT THIS EARLIEST IS AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM, THE GROUP STARTED TALKING TO EVERYBODY IN THE WHITE HOUSE. EVERYBODY IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS FOR IT AND UNDERSTANDS IT. THAT’S NOT A BAD PLACE TO START, BEGINNING WITH THE PRESIDENT. THEY KNOW PEOPLE EMPTY CLOSETS AND ATTICS OF ALL OF THIS BASEBALL CARDS AND ART WORK THAT THEY’VE HELD ONTO BECAUSE OF THE TAX ON INFLATION.>>IS EVEN STEVEN MNUCHIN IN FAVOR OF THIS. I HEARD IN THE TREASURY THERE’S DOUBTS ABOUT THIS.>>THERE’S ALWAYS MNUCHINS IN THE TREASURY THEY SAY IT MAY NOT WORK FOR THEM. HE SAID I’D LIKE CONGRESS TO DO IT BUT I MAY HAVE TO DO IT MYSELF. AND HE HAS TOLD ME AND HE HAS TOLD PEOPLE THAT HE KNOWS HE DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY. AGAIN, IT’S CLEAR IN LEGAL TERMS. MARIA: DID YOU SAY THERE’S ALWAYS MUNCH KINS IN THE WHITE HOUSE?>>I’M SORRY, MUNCHKINS FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ, NOT MNUCHIN. MARIA: THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT. MUNCHKINS. YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT MNUCHIN.>>THE MUNCHKINS ARE BAD ON IT. MARIA: WHAT’S YOUR STANCE ON THE ECONOMY? DO YOU SEE A RECESSION ON THE HORIZON. IT’S GOT ME BAFFLED. I THOUGHT THINGS WERE GOING REALLY WELL.>>THINGS ARE GOING MUCH BETTER THAN THEY WERE. WE WERE GROWING AT 3%. IT’S NOW MOVED TOWARDS 2%. THAT’S NOT A RECESSION. RECESSION IS LESS THAN ZERO. IT IS SLOW GROWTH, SLOWER GROWTH THAN THE ECONOMY DESERVES. THERE’S OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE TRADE WAR WITH CHINA AND WITH TARIFFS. TARIFFS ARE A TAX ON THE AMERICAN CONSUMER AND THEY HURT THE ECONOMY AND THEY TELL EVERY PRODUCER, WELL, YOU DON’T KNOW WHETHER TO INVEST TODAY OR NOT BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT PRICES WILL BE AND YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT’S HAPPENING BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE UNCERTAINTY. THAT’S WHAT’S SPOOKING BUSINESS INVESTMENT. AS SOON AS THAT GETS SETTLED, WE COME TO SOME AGREEMENT WITH CHINA AND HOPEFULLY WITH THE EUROPEANS, THAT I THINK YOU’LL SEE THE ECONOMY TAKE OFF BECAUSE THE FUNDAMENTALS ARE QUITE STRONG BUT WHY NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LEFT CLAIMING THAT THE ECONOMY’S SLOWING TO PLAY THE CARD OF INDEXING CAPITAL GAINS SO WE NO LONGER TAX INFLATION. I SAY LET’S TAKE THOSE MARBLES OFF THE TABLE AND THANK THE DEMOCRATS FOR THE HYSTERICS ABOUT HOW WELL THE ECONOMY’S DOING.>>GROVER, IT’S VERONICA FROM WALL STREET JOURNAL. IF YOU DO THESE MOVES NOW, THOUGH, DOES THIS LEAVE YOU WITH A LACK OF FIRE POWER WHEN THINGS ARE ACTUALLY REALLY BAD? YOU NEED THEM.>>WELL, YOU CAN ALWAYS DO MORE TAX CUTS IN THE FUTURE. YOU COULD ALWAYS WORK WITH THE FED TO DO A BETTER JOB. I WOULD START NOW BECAUSE IT TAKES A WHILE FOR PEOPLE TO SELL A $50 MILLION BUILDING IN CHICAGO. THAT P DOESN’T HAPPEN IN TWO MONTHS. BUT I THINK YOU’LL SEE PEOPLE MOVE VERY QUICKLY TO SELL OLDER ASSETS AND MOVE THEM TO HIGHER AND BETTER USE. SO I WOULD DO THIS NOW AND GOING FORWARD THE NEXT TIME THERE’S A TAX CUT, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS CHANGE BECOMES PERMANENT AND IN LAW, NOT JUST REGULATORY. WHAT WILL SPEED UP ALL OF THIS ACTION IS THE DEMOCRATS WILL ANNOUNCE WHEN I’M PRESIDENT I’LL TAKE IT ALL AWAY. SO EVERYONE PLANNING ON SELLING IN THE NEXT 30 YEARS SELLS IN THE NEXT YEAR.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Post navigation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *