House Passes Tax Reform

[Biopsyman]

He's for higher taxes so everyone will be rich.

That does not make sense.. R Burgundy

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Not at the level he is talking about.

Look, I am all for incentivizing responsible and sustainable growth, and for reinvestment of capital. But the notion that the corporate tax cut is going to lead to factories and jobs is just ludicrous WITHOUT DEMAND DRAMATICALLY INCREASING from the rest of the economy.

You want to incentivize more factories and jobs? Spur demand. Not wealth where it has negligible effect on the broader economy.

How in the world does raising taxes increase demand?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Uh, I believe there are plenty of incentives to create wealth already in America. Who says that there aren't? Chopping the estate tax for multi-millionaires and chopping the corporate tax rate will do ZERO to create jobs. A lower corporate tax rate might help investors but it is not going to do a damn thing to create jobs or bring jobs back to America. Stable societies have progressive, stable tax systems. Most dysfunctional countries have weak tax systems. David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, has savaged this tax plan. It's not like Republicans have tried this before. Bush did the same thing--no trickle down.

Yeah because having a higher corporate tax system has done so much and worked out so great. You have a zero understanding of what runs this country. If think America has a weak tax system, then that further proves how dumb you actually are.

 

[lawgator1]

Most new millionaires are 1st generation.. They are the groups of people likely to take risk and start a small business...

The families he named are not first generation millionaires.

 

[hog88]

How in the world does raising taxes increase demand?

Increases demand for tax attorneys and accountants. LGs all about getting paid.

 

[1972 Grad]

Increases demand for tax attorneys and accountants. LGs all about getting paid.

He must be paid for being on here then.

 

[#VFL__]

After reading the proposal, it’s good to see cuts coming my way. The upkeep of a jet is an expensive thing folks.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

getting a refund is not smart Poindexter.

 

[LouderVol]

I would love to see the argument that higher taxes fix anything or make it better for the middle class.

 

[Septic]

I would love to see the argument that higher taxes fix anything or make it better for the middle class.

Rational middle class families probably shouldn't be counting on a reduction in taxes from this charade.

In fact, I think it's a good bet that ultimately the middle class will end up paying more because of it.

 

[Biopsyman]

Is there an on line calculator that you can plug in your income to see how you would or would not benefit?

 

[hog88]

Rational middle class families probably shouldn't be counting on a reduction in taxes from this charade.

In fact, I think it's a good bet that ultimately the middle class will end up paying more because of it.

I think your problem is what you consider a middle class family. Way to many people consider themselves middle class when in reality they are two paychecks away from bankruptcy.

 

[LouderVol]

Rational middle class families probably shouldn't be counting on a reduction in taxes from this charade.

In fact, I think it's a good bet that ultimately the middle class will end up paying more because of it.

doesn't answer the question.

cause it seems like we have created a logical fallacy here.

(left) On one hand I don't think anyone wants to argue that MORE taxes are good for the people paying them.

(right) On the other hand the argument being made is that less taxes (if they were actually less) is also hurting the people paying them vs the rates staying the same.

(middle)And I don't think anyone is saying that the current rate is good for the people or sufficient for the needs of the government.

so again, how would more taxes help? or why would the same rate be preferable to less taxes?

 

[Septic]

Is there an on line calculator that you can plug in your income to see how you would or would not benefit?

Hell no. You think they're going to remotely put any 'savings' into writing?

No the current "sell" by legislators is that the median "middle class" reduction would see ~$1,100 a year savings. Though there are studies showing over time it will actually cost the middle class.

No one is talking about the a $1.7T expansion to the deficit or that that amount is reliant upon and expansion in commercial growth.

Honestly, the only winner here is corporations and the ultra wealthy, not the small businesses and sure as hell not the middle class. You know, the people who contribute to and sponsor our law makers.

It's funny how the "small businesses" are always touted as the "backbone of America" during election season and here they're barely a stepchild.

 

[LouderVol]

Hell no. You think they're going to remotely put any 'savings' into writing?

No the current "sell" by legislators is that the median "middle class" reduction would see ~$1,100 a year savings. Though there are studies showing over time it will actually cost the middle class.

No one is talking about the a $1.7T expansion to the deficit or that that amount is reliant upon and expansion in commercial growth.

Honestly, the only winner here is corporations and the ultra wealthy, not the small businesses and sure as hell not the middle class. You know, the people who contribute to and sponsor our law makers.

It's funny how the "small businesses" are always touted as the "backbone of America" during election season and here they're barely a stepchild.

if this tax hurts the people, which you have maintained that it will, it would also hurt the corporations as we the people would have less money to spend on their goods.

while IF the corporate taxes go down and that actually translates to an actual reduction in cost (big if admittedly) that would be good for people. Unless someone has done the math to prove the offset of cost reduction is removed by the increase in tax (although it is going down as well) I don't see how you could say it is bad. if it works as presented, which it may not. yay Washington.

 

[Septic]

doesn't answer the question.

cause it seems like we have created a logical fallacy here.

(left) On one hand I don't think anyone wants to argue that MORE taxes are good for the people paying them.

(right) On the other hand the argument being made is that less taxes (if they were actually less) is also hurting the people paying them vs the rates staying the same.

(middle)And I don't think anyone is saying that the current rate is good for the people or sufficient for the needs of the government.

so again, how would more taxes help? or why would the same rate be preferable to less taxes?

Pretty clearly, my response wasn't an attempt to answer your question. I simply pointed out the selling points they're using are a joke and that the savings will be less then $10/month to the median middle class family. Hardly worth it.

Spending is the problem, not the taxes.

 

[armchair]

The House Just Voted to Bankrupt Graduate Students - The New York Times

House tax bill punishes graduate students. But then we know Republicans are really into intelligence, are they? Seriously, the GOP has long been anti-intellectualism. They much prefer their rigid, stupid, anti-American ideology.

 

[Septic]

if this tax hurts the people, which you have maintained that it will, it would also hurt the corporations as we the people would have less money to spend on their goods.

while IF the corporate taxes go down and that actually translates to an actual reduction in cost (big if admittedly) that would be good for people. Unless someone has done the math to prove the offset of cost reduction is removed by the increase in tax (although it is going down as well) I don't see how you could say it is bad. if it works as presented, which it may not. yay Washington.

I've not "maintained" that it will hurt people at all.

Are you intentionally trying to misrepresent my comments or are you not bright enough to comprehend them?

I don't think that tax's being lowered is "bad" at all as you assert - only that the tax plan disproportionately benefits the ultra wealthy and corporations.

 

[hog88]

Pretty clearly, my response wasn't an attempt to answer your question. I simply pointed out the selling points they're using are a joke and that the savings will be less then $10/month to the median middle class family. Hardly worth it.

Spending is the problem, not the taxes.

Spending AND taxes are problems.

BTW what income level is the “median middle class”?

 

[hog88]

The House Just Voted to Bankrupt Graduate Students - The New York Times

House tax bill punishes graduate students. But then we know Republicans are really into intelligence, are they? Seriously, the GOP has long been anti-intellectualism. They much prefer their rigid, stupid, anti-American ideology.

How is that any different than a regular employee paying taxes for personal use of a company car?

 

[Septic]

Spending AND taxes are problems.

BTW what income level is the “median middle class”?

Who knows? Probably the income level that produced the best mathematical result to tout the highest reduction.

 

[hog88]

Who knows? Probably the income level that produced the best mathematical result to tout the highest reduction.

Suuuure.

You just like to ***** whine and complain don’t you?

 

[LouderVol]

I've not "maintained" that it will hurt people at all.

Are you intentionally trying to misrepresent my comments or are you not bright enough to comprehend them?

I don't think that tax's being lowered is "bad" at all as you assert - only that the tax plan disproportionately benefits the ultra wealthy and corporations.

Hell no. You think they're going to remotely put any 'savings' into writing?

No the current "sell" by legislators is that the median "middle class" reduction would see ~$1,100 a year savings. Though there are studies showing over time it will actually cost the middle class.

No one is talking about the a $1.7T expansion to the deficit or that that amount is reliant upon and expansion in commercial growth.

Honestly, the only winner here is corporations and the ultra wealthy, not the small businesses and sure as hell not the middle class. You know, the people who contribute to and sponsor our law makers.

It's funny how the "small businesses" are always touted as the "backbone of America" during election season and here they're barely a stepchild.

see the bolded.

 

[Septic]

Suuuure.

You just like to ***** whine and complain don’t you?

Whatever dude, I'm not the one running around to the news organizations trying to sell this turd to the American public as some rain maker.

 

[LouderVol]

Pretty clearly, my response wasn't an attempt to answer your question. I simply pointed out the selling points they're using are a joke and that the savings will be less then $10/month to the median middle class family. Hardly worth it.

Spending is the problem, not the taxes.

agree on the last. and its a problem no one wants to address.