Trump Tax Overhaul will give the wealthy $21B gift
- Thread starter meridian
- Start date
So says Simone Foxman of Bloomberg News, the radical Commie publication().
I bet the children of Trump will love it. Guess who will pay for that $21B?
Link
How is the government not taking your money considered a gift? I'd consider it independence.
So says Simone Foxman of Bloomberg News, the radical Commie publication(
I bet the children of Trump will love it. Guess who will pay for that $21B?
Link
Also, interesting that you are worried about a $21B instead of the $108B expected to be lost over failure to repay student loans (per the GAO).
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-...on-in-student-debt-in-coming-years-1480501802
So says Simone Foxman of Bloomberg News, the radical Commie publication(
I bet the children of Trump will love it. Guess who will pay for that $21B?
Link
What do you believe the tax rates and corresponding income levels should should be for individuals and corporations?
Why do conservatives always want a huge military, amongst other things, but don't want to pay taxes to have it? Do you think freedom is free?
So says Simone Foxman of Bloomberg News, the radical Commie publication(
I bet the children of Trump will love it. Guess who will pay for that $21B?
Link
You can't give something, that was never yours to start with.
That ideological point, out of the way....
Trump's tax plan is a marker in what will be a negotiated tax package, that I assume will be fairly small at the end of the day. There are a lot of actual budget/deficit hawks in the GOP ranks of Congress, that weren't around during the Bush years.
I find nothing interesting about this post....other that @Lucy01 liked it. Lucy is either forgetting to change handles, or is politically confused as most Trump supporters.
Again, you either smart up or dumb down. Smarting up takes work. Dumbing down takes a vacation. Take your choice.
So says Simone Foxman of Bloomberg News, the radical Commie publication(
I bet the children of Trump will love it. Guess who will pay for that $21B?
Link
I've decided not to send you a 100 bucks for Christmas. Thank you for the $100 gift.
No kidding. I'll never understand that "logic."
If you get mugged on the street and the mugger gets $200 from you...then you somehow convince him to let you keep $20 for cab fare, the outcome is that he took $180 from you, not that he gave you a $20 gift.
Aren't taxes our fee for living in a civilization. So it would be more akin to living in a gated community with a fee for living there. One day they tell you the next year's fee is half. Is that a gift?
Do you view being born white and male in the US a gift (from whomever)? That's the beginning of the logic you're missing. You're clever enough to fill in the gaps. All you need to do is pull a Houdini first.
LOL....go ask some white guys in Pikeville, KY (or across the border into WV) how much a "blessing" being born a white male in America is to them.
That kind of talk is why Dems are losing.
No. That's you as a conservative trying to have it both ways. First, no one said every white male American has it great. But Crazed does and I was addressing Crazed. Second, white male Americans who don't have it as great as Crazed could have it a lot greater than they've settled for. That's also integral to Crazed's Philosophy of Existence. Third, those white males registering their complaints by voting for Trump are playing the victim card as much as any liberal voter ever has. Their vote is asking for Trump to solve their own problem (= victim) as he has promised ("Only I can. Believe me.") That's where you're going off the rails with your conservative attempt to have it both ways.
Anyway, the point to Crazed has absolutely nothing to do with poor white trash but rich white luxury getting tax breaks, remember? Actually, it does have something to do with poor white trash, along with all other poor trash, because that's part of the logic Crazed is pulling a Houdini to avoid confronting.
Ok...I'm not sure what all that meant...it was a tough read.
But I'm giving some political advice....to you and all Dems.
Quit talking about race. Just stop. Frame every argument about economics, wages, jobs, etc....
You just lost an election via working class people....to a billionaire, NYC "Republican".
He stole your voting base (while alienating a lot of traditional, college educated Republicans/leaners).
How did this happen?
Why don't you ask conservatives? Allocation of spending is up for debate, but this thread is taxing the transfer of wealth from one generation to the next.
So says Simone Foxman of Bloomberg News, the radical Commie publication(
I bet the children of Trump will love it. Guess who will pay for that $21B?
Link
As predicted, republicans suddenly don't care about annual budget deficits or the national debt. They'll explode both. That's all their tax plans ever do. Not really a prediction, they never gave a shit about any of this or anything else they claim to care about.
"Look, it's a no-brainer. If we make sure rich people have more money it'll suddenly grow the economy."
- pretty much any republican
This nonsense gets so old. 500 b deficit, 19 t debt. Neither presidential candidate promised any significant cuts to spending. So yes, tax cuts under those circumstances are a gift.
Well, from that perspective, I very much agree with you. I've long said that the only genuine tax cut is a spending cut. But, then, that spending cut might also happen in the future (hehehe...I know, right?).
But that doesn't change the fact -- and it is a fact -- that the money a person earns (regardless how much it is.....and, surely to God, regardless of their friggin' race) is theirs. Yes, taxes are a necessary evil for living in a civilized society, etc. etc. Nobody ever claimed otherwise. This, however, does not negate the very notion of private property.
Now, I would quibble with the contention that any tax, irrespective of how much it is or what it's for, is the price of admission for living in a civilized society. That's nonsense -- particularly given that so much of our government spending (particularly at the federal level, but also at the state level) goes towards transfer payments of one kind or another.
Why are transfer payments of any kind not the price of living in a civilized society? We need to discuss what civilized means I guess, in part I'm suggesting a non-Darwinian society. Something far more akin to Athens than Sparta.
We have Trump pretty much paying no taxes as a billionaire. What makes us think he's the only one? It seems the top .1% has done pretty well by the tax rates since the 1950s. And to throw it in, google "US effective corporate tax rate", corporations also have done pretty well with their effective rate over the last 60 years as well. The rate chart is the rate, as we know people in these upper brackets have many ways to assure they pay no where close to that rate.
This is the problem with google.
I did as you ask. The returned links that I opened are mostly garbage and provide no important information. First, those links that even bothered to describe the numerator and denominator in determining the "rate" used gross profits. No corporation pays taxes on gross profits--here or abroad. Second, there is no mention of in any of the links I opened about what is net profit--probably because there is no standard definition. Thrid, the statutory tax rates are applied to taxable income. Period. Taxable income is defined and then calculated according to the exceedingly voluminous tax laws and regs. Except for tax credits, (which of course are different from tax deductions) corporations write checks for the tax liability at the statutory rate on taxable income. To validly compare US tax rates to other places in the world, tax liability based upon gross income is useless. We need to start by looking at how taxable income is determined here and abroad, which is a lot of work and takes expertise well beyond the capability of those pundits who try and make the point that US corporations are not subject to the highest taxes in the world.
I understand your point, but if you enter into a deal with the bank for your home. They have every right to expect a payment. Well, we may not like the deal, but until we change it we have to pay the government.
And this is the point I always try and make. Neither party is proposing any significant spending cuts.
What you describe is part of the problem with everything. We can say "the corporate tax rate is higher than other country's tax rates" and that is accurate. But it means nothing. Few, very few, pay the full tax rate. Somewhere we need an effective tax rate, and even agreeing on that may be impossible. We hear "close loopholes" but even agreeing on what a loophole is may be impossible. So having a meaningful discussion on corporate taxes becomes very difficult. Yes, our corporate rate is higher than Japan's. Does that mean American corporations pay MORE than Japan? Who actually knows?
Assuming mom and dad want me out of the house, my choice is homeless or pay for housing. Not much of a choice in my book. I can also choose not to have a car, a little more feasible, but in Carmel not all that feasible. I can choose not to eat, seems short term though.
Look, all I'm saying is we have a government that spends a lot of money. This isn't a new thing so we can't act surprised. Neither party offered a candidate that promised significant spending cuts. So yeah, were on the hook for it.
Well, I don't think being civilized necessitates having lots of able-bodied, able-minded people who are chronically dependent upon the fruits of other . And to say that we either have this or social Darwinism is you once again falling into that false choice we talked about the other day. People aren't plants, Marvin. With relatively few exceptions, they're not completely helpless but for the sustained support from external sources.
Let's get down to brass tacks here: do you view civilization through the Louis Blanc formulation, popularized by Marx, which held that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?
Because it sounds as if you are. And, no, that's not me calling you a communist. I'm simply saying that you seem to believe that, if not for heavily redistributive public policies (which is what Blanc is describing), then we don't have a civilized society....and we thus have Social Darwinism.
And, if that's the case, then you need to realize that if a society is approached in that manner, you're going to surprisingly find a whole lot of "need" that you didn't realize existed. Why is this? Well, because you've (unwittingly, and with the best intentions) established a society where being needy carries a premium.
Here's what you need to consider: to what extent? As much as we have now? More? Is there a certain amount of redistribution whereby we qualify as not being Darwinist?
A common ideal on these questions is FDR's 1944 social vision: a society where every person has a right to employment, housing, healthcare, education -- as well as an income sufficient for food, clothing, and recreation. He put these ideas forward as a "Second Bill of Rights". In other words, I suspect a lot of people would answer the question "to what extent?" by saying "As much as is needed to meet those guarantees."
Now, I think this is utter folly -- and that's not because I desire a society where people are starving and homeless. Rather, I think it's not only unattainable, but also rife with unintended consequences.
Yeah, it may be true, but people struggling (or who think they're struggling) don't like to hear that, especially the "white privilege" framing of it.
The nonpartisan Tax Foundation disagrees with your assumptions that all tax cuts (in rate) result in lower revenue.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/economic-growth-drives-level-tax-revenue
As The Economist writer implies, economic growth is a major driver of the level of tax revenues. In the times when tax revenues are up, the economy is doing well. When tax revenues are down, it’s because the economy is doing poorly.
The short answer to how we maximize tax revenue: increase economic growth. We can do this by limiting taxes on economic factors that drive economic growth, namely investment. This means reducing tax rates on businesses, limiting the double taxation of investment created by taxing corporate income at both the entity level (corporate tax) and the shareholder level (capitals gains and dividend taxes), and moving toward full expensing (which would allow businesses to account for all their costs).
In the long-term, both cutting the corporate tax rate to 25 percent and moving to full expensing would lead to increased total federal tax revenue in the long term due to more jobs, higher wages, and more economic activity.
In the end, we can maximize total tax revenue by moving away from economically inefficient taxes such as corporate taxes and long depreciation lives and toward taxes that collect revenue without damaging economic growth.
Also, IMO cutting spending isn't the problem. If the economy is growing at a functional rate, spending constraints is what needs to happen. For example, if tax revenues increase by 5% and spending increases by 2%, imagine what that compounding effect will have over just a few years.
Although things look bleak from a nominal amount, the mismatch between spending and receipts is much smaller than you think.
The problem is simple actually. Social program payments are what is out of control. Makes you wonder why Dems always focus on cutting defense as a selling point for fiscal policy reform.
Um...so why are so many Republican/conservatives insisting that Democrats should have pushed Tim Ryan as Speaker instead of Nancy Pelosi? The answer was pretty abundantly clear - hint...it wasn't because "economics, wages, jobs, etc."
I don't know the other choices, but I hope you stick with Pelosi and ride her down into the depths of failure.
Who creates jobs in this country? The poor or the wealthy? Who pays the vast majority of taxes in the country? The poor or the wealthy. Not hard to figure why those living on the government teet hate the thought of having to get a job and actually pay taxes. Much nicer sleeping in and going the mailbox to collect a check than getting up and going to work. Tax payers have had enough of supporting the lazy unappreciative unmotivated entitlement generation. And this election just proved it.
There are plenty of people living off the govt teet...but not really as you describe. Retirees and defense contractors are the main 2 groups.
Contrary to maybe what you believe, people don't get to stay at home and collect checks....with the exception of those that get declared disabled and can receive SSDI payments.
I suppose maybe you are talking about things such as WIC....but that's small enough to be a rounding error in the Fed budget ($6b out of a $4T budget).
Last edited:
The problem is simple actually. Social program payments are what is out of control. Makes you wonder why Dems always focus on cutting defense as a selling point for fiscal policy reform.
Can we look at that chart next to a graph of income distribution? I bet we see a correlation. As the top 1% takes off and everyone else loses (in real dollars) the need for assistance goes up. We have developed a system that only rewards two groups, those able to use money to make money and those that are the elite of the elite. If you are an NFL QB, a fortune 500 CEO, or someone already in the investor class you are doing great. Everyone else, not as much.
