Tax Reform

[_______]

This should have it's own topic as it'll be in the news at least through August (more likely December).

My early questions are:

1) What constitutes a "business"?

In theory, individuals pay the individual rate and businesses pay the corporate rate. But most businesses aren't set up as corporations. They're LLP's, partnerships, or other entities that pass their profits straight through to their owners (who obviously pay the individual rate).

Right now that doesn't matter because the difference between the individual and corporate rates is minimal. But if the corporate tax rate is less than half the individual rate, it will make a HUGE difference.

If there is no change, the choice of business structure matters a lot. If there is a change where LLP's and partnerships pay the much lower corporate rate, what prevents wealthy individuals from sheltering income in perfectly legal business structures?

During the campaign, Trump boasted of not paying anything more than he was legally required. Do we really want to widen that door?

2) What about the deficit?

Both the Reagan and Bush2 tax cuts were championed as "revenue neutral" as they would pay for themselves through economic growth. In neither case was that true and the deficit grew under both. That argument is being raised a third time here.

I'm not overly worried about the deficit but I know others here have expressed greater concern. I get that it limits our future options. Do we accept the 2x failed logic here or is the deficit only a worry during a Democratic administration?

[chadk66]

I believe after Reagan's tax cuts we say three straight years of 3% increase in GDP. That was many billions of dollars more to the U.S. treasury.

[_______]

I believe after Reagan's tax cuts we say three straight years of 3% increase in GDP. That was many billions of dollars more to the U.S. treasury.

The Reagan tax cuts were in 1981 and we were in a recession in 1982 so your belief is inaccurate. +4% growth in 83 and +7% growth in 84 mitigate -2% in 82.

I don't doubt that the tax cuts in 81 contributed to that growth. I don't doubt that tax reform now will contribute to growth.

I do question whether the growth in the economy will balance federal spending. It didn't then and I seriously doubt it will now.

[whodoyoulike]

Good points!

As presented, this is more smoke and mirrors. He's been pandering.

Why not phase it in?

For example, cut individuals (except estate which only benefits the top 5%) ASAP and see the economic effects* and then one or two years later corporate and see the effects.

*I think the only individual deductions to be allowed are charitable and mortgage because that's what I just heard one of the presenters Cohn or Munckin(??) state on the news. Odd how as the boomers age medical will now be eliminated. Also, property tax deductions is a BIG deduction for most.

One of Trump's economic advisors is a guy named Peter Navarra. I remember him. He tried running for mayor and another political office here about 30 years ago and the voters realized he had his head up his ..... and he failed both times.

I doubt he's changed.

[_______]

Good points!

As presented, this is more smoke and mirrors. He's been pandering.

Why not phase it in?

For example, cut individuals (except estate which only benefits the top 5%) ASAP and see the economic effects* and then one or two years later corporate and see the effects.

*I think the only individual deductions to be allowed are charitable and mortgage because that's what I just heard one of the presenters Cohn or Munckin(??) state on the news. Odd how as the boomers age medical will now be eliminated. Also, property tax deductions is a BIG deduction for most.

One of Trump's economic advisors is a guy named Peter Navarra. I remember him. He tried running for mayor and another political office here about 30 years ago and the voters realized he had his head up his ..... and he failed both times.

I doubt he's changed.

We disagree on this.

I think corporate tax reform is much more important for the economy. Our individual tax rates aren't that far out of step with the rest of the industrialized world. We are glaringly out of step on how we tax businesses and I think that part matters more.

I do think it's important to align our taxes with desired outcomes.

If we want companies to shelter income overseas, then carry on with what we have. If we want smart billionaires to turn themselves into LLC's because they pay 50% less in taxes, then pass what the administration proposes.

The debate over the next 4-8 months will be how we balance those extremes and reward business for behavior that results in long term growth.

[whodoyoulike]

My suggestion of phasing in individuals first is because I'm an individual and I want to see the impact. If individuals don't receive benefits as promised there's going to be a revolt.

The phase in can be corporates and then a couple years later individuals. It doesn't really matter that much to me. But, basically let's see if the benefits really do occur as promised otherwise cancel and reverse.

Again, smoke and mirrors because I don't think the benefits will occur.

[NJ Stinks]

Every time a Republican cuts taxes, some American who really needs help gets screwed.

But the GOP in all their magnanimous glory don't care. The rich have got to get richer (while promising more jobs and great tax breaks for all!!) :jump:

Even though half the country needs a federal income tax break like horseplayers need a higher takeout.

And good jobs never seem to trickle down.

And let's not forget the religious have to be pacified!! Otherwise who the hell would ever vote Republican? (Oh yea, those pesky straight shooters who don't see a problem with just about everybody packin' would. :popcorn: )

[Clocker]

Even though half the country needs a federal income tax break like horseplayers need a higher takeout.



That would be the approximately half of the country that actually pay any federal income tax? :eek:

[chadk66]

The Reagan tax cuts were in 1981 and we were in a recession in 1982 so your belief is inaccurate. +4% growth in 83 and +7% growth in 84 mitigate -2% in 82.

I don't doubt that the tax cuts in 81 contributed to that growth. I don't doubt that tax reform now will contribute to growth.

I do question whether the growth in the economy will balance federal spending. It didn't then and I seriously doubt it will now.well it don't change overnight. It takes 1.5-2 years before the benefits are seen. that's how these things are constantly muddied up.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Every time a Republican cuts taxes, some American who really needs help gets screwed.

...

If being screwed is the standard you want to go for, then its hard to imagine that anyone in this equation gets screwed worse than the guy that has his money confiscated to get divvied up 3405 times before his twenty becomes a quarter penny for that guy that needs help.

[classhandicapper]

I'm more in favor of tax reform than tax cuts. We could probably add efficiency and growth just by reforming the system. I don't see the upside of larger deficits. Even if it does stimulate some growth (which imo makes sense), there's almost no chance it's going to pay for itself.

IMHO, the perfect formula to #maga would be to reform the tax system, cut taxes, and slow the growth of spending. Then you get the benefits of a reformed system with lower taxes but without piling up more IOUs.

[JustRalph]

Relax NJ or you're not going to make it 4 yrs

[FantasticDan]

The Dumbest Part of Trump's Dumb Tax Plan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-dumbest-part-of-trumps-dumb-tax-plan/2017/04/27/c621d2ac-2b7f-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html

[boxcar]

The Dumbest Part of Trump's Dumb Tax Plan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-dumbest-part-of-trumps-dumb-tax-plan/2017/04/27/c621d2ac-2b7f-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html

The dumbest thing about the entire article are the lame, old, tired, illogical leftist talking points. :ThmbDown:

[whodoyoulike]

The dumbest thing about the entire article are the lame, old, tired, illogical leftist talking points. :ThmbDown:

The real purpose of Trump's tax reform is to eliminate the estate tax. There's really no reason to eliminate the estate tax from the POV of the majority of Americans. And, all of the other stuff is smoke and mirrors which won't pass as presented.

He wants to eliminate the estate tax because he wants to keep all of his estate even after he's gone (he doesn't want to share).

I think there are ways to still maintain control of your estate e.g., charitable trusts but they'll still have to disburse assets over time. But, I'm not positive about this because I will never have to research it.

[delayjf]

George W's tax cuts lead to increases in Gov revenues, I believe they even set the then revenue record.

[Clocker]

Under Bill Clinton, the capital gains tax was cut from 28% to 20% and tax revenue increased significantly.

In a 2008 debate between Obama and Hillary, the moderator cited that and asked Obama if he would maintain his policy to raise the capital gains tax, even if it meant less revenue.

Obama said, yes, he would raise that tax, if only in the interest of "fairness". :pound:

[Lemon Drop Husker]

The Dumbest Part of Trump's Dumb Tax Plan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-dumbest-part-of-trumps-dumb-tax-plan/2017/04/27/c621d2ac-2b7f-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html

You are seriously going to quote this piece of trash article?

WaPo has become an absolute disgrace.

[AndyC]

I'm more in favor of tax reform than tax cuts. We could probably add efficiency and growth just by reforming the system. I don't see the upside of larger deficits. Even if it does stimulate some growth (which imo makes sense), there's almost no chance it's going to pay for itself.

IMHO, the perfect formula to #maga would be to reform the tax system, cut taxes, and slow the growth of spending. Then you get the benefits of a reformed system with lower taxes but without piling up more IOUs.

What in your view would result in tax reform? What specifically needs to be reformed?

[FantasticDan]

You are seriously going to quote this piece of trash article?Not only was I seriously going to, I seriously did! :ThmbUp:

[Lemon Drop Husker]

What in your view would result in tax reform? What specifically needs to be reformed?

It isn't just good enough to drastically cut taxes for the Low to Middle Class, you also have to penalize the Upper Class according to Dimwhit logic.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Not only was I seriously going to, I seriously did! :ThmbUp:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxJUToUM8ro

[fast4522]

Every business who takes a huge loss this year is currently eligible going forward in years to come to to offset that loss right? We are all familiar with that one because of our President right? The point is all of these deductions are OK because they support the system right? A new system of the flat tax probably would not include many of the old systems deductions, but with the flat system everybody pays. This is not where we are going, but I think what will be is something that will provide the middle class some relief. In the end down the the road the flat tax will be more appealing after this transition. In my opinion we are going to make a few stops along the way. Anything that provides relief to the middle class is just fine, but cuts in service is mandatory. This mindset of thinking we can have both is not only uneducated but also very corrosive. Consider this, 30 Trillion in national debt will bring war the likes of which the world has never seen. If you have kids and grandchildren wrap your head around that reality.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Every business who takes a huge loss this year is currently eligible going forward in years to come to to offset that loss right? We are all familiar with that one because of our President right? The point is all of these deductions are OK because they support the system right? A new system of the flat tax probably would not include many of the old systems deductions, but with the flat system everybody pays. This is not where we are going, but I think what will be is something that will provide the middle class some relief. In the end down the the road the flat tax will be more appealing after this transition. In my opinion we are going to make a few stops along the way. Anything that provides relief to the middle class is just fine, but cuts in service is mandatory. This mindset of thinking we can have both is not only uneducated but also very corrosive. Consider this, 30 Trillion in national debt will bring war the likes of which the world has never seen. If you have kids and grandchildren wrap your head around that reality.

Not sure I can agree with ANY of that.

The "Tax Plan' on board has been long debated. Flat Tax everybody, with essentially no exceptions.

Everybody gets a tax break. How anybody is bitching is laughable. Middle class get at least an 8 to 13% break.

The real question at hand is whether it can really happen.

[AndyC]

....... Flat Tax everybody, with essentially no exceptions.

Everybody gets a tax break. How anybody is bitching is laughable. Middle class get at least an 8 to 13% break.

The real question at hand is whether it can really happen.

Serious question. How does the flat tax work? I don't think there is even a consensus on what the flat tax is.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Serious question. How does the flat tax work? I don't think there is even a consensus on what the flat tax is.

More serious question, how does the current tax system work?

Do you even know what tax bracket you are in, or do you just accept what is as what is?

A "flat" tax is just that. You make X amount of money, you'll be taxed at X rate. Nothing more, nothing less. For the vast majority of Americans that have a job, family, etc. that means 25%. I guarantee that is 10% less than you paid last year.

[AndyC]

More serious question, how does the current tax system work?

Do you even know what tax bracket you are in, or do you just accept what is as what is?

A "flat" tax is just that. You make X amount of money, you'll be taxed at X rate. Nothing more, nothing less. For the vast majority of Americans that have a job, family, etc. that means 25%. I guarantee that is 10% less than you paid last year.

Ok, I own an apartment building as my only source of income, how do I determine how much I pay tax on? Can I write off depreciation, repairs, loan interest, property taxes, etc?

There is really not many brackets now, so having one bracket doesn't really bring a lot of simplification .

A flat tax rate, in my view, is by far the fairest way to tax but it would mean a huge tax cut for the rich and a huge tax increase for the people currently paying no income tax. Not a combination likely to win approval from congress or the public.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Ok, I own an apartment building as my only source of income, how do I determine how much I pay tax on? Can I write off depreciation, repairs, loan interest, property taxes, etc?

There is really not many brackets now, so having one bracket doesn't really bring a lot of simplification .

A flat tax rate, in my view, is by far the fairest way to tax but it would mean a huge tax cut for the rich and a huge tax increase for the people currently paying no income tax. Not a combination likely to win approval from congress or the public.

What do you pay for taxes now?

Businesses, even small, get a 15% tax rate. If it is just you, you go from 39% to 35% at the worst.

Either way, you'll get a massive tax break. By the way, I'm available for hire.

[_______]

More serious question, how does the current tax system work?

Do you even know what tax bracket you are in, or do you just accept what is as what is?

A "flat" tax is just that. You make X amount of money, you'll be taxed at X rate. Nothing more, nothing less. For the vast majority of Americans that have a job, family, etc. that means 25%. I guarantee that is 10% less than you paid last year.

My wife and I reported a 6 figure retirement income in 2016 and our overall federal tax rate was just under 14%. California added another 3.75%.

I can't imagine that there is a single American who paid an overall tax rate of 35% much less the majority as you suggest. Maybe on the last dollars earned but certainly not on every dollar.

I think you might misunderstand the current progressive tax structure where you pay no taxes on the the first dollars earned and then higher rates as you earn more.

A flat tax where you pay the same rate on a $8000 yearly income as you do on $8,000,000 would be devastating to the majority of Americans which is why it has never gotten any traction outside of Steve Forbes.

[chadk66]

I'm as middle class as you can get. During Bush's tax cut, you know the one the leftists said only helped the rich, I had to pay $1800 less in taxes. Hard to beat that. Under the new Trump plan, at least what's been talked about so far, the doubling of the standard deduction will net me about $2200 in tax savings. That's pretty sweet for this middle class guy lol

[Track Collector]

When you look at current practices, the government does not really care how much revenue comes in thru the tax system, because consideration thereof is almost non-existent when formulating their "budget" and determining how much they are going to spend.

On the other hand, taxation is more importantly used as a means of separating the middle class from more of their earnings, thus widening the gap between the two class groups.

[AndyC]

...... I can't imagine that there is a single American who paid an overall tax rate of 35% much less the majority as you suggest. Maybe on the last dollars earned but certainly not on every dollar.........

There many who pay more than the 35%.

[Tom]

Bottom line.
The government is a bunch of lying thieves.

The FF had the tight idea when the English Muffin King George taxes them - they shot at him.

A lesson lost on today's victims.

[_______]

There many who pay more than the 35%.

Federal income tax paid/AGI, I don't think there are.

I'll have to back off my "no one". I don't know that. It's probable that across the entire tax paying population, there are some. But they are very few.

To be fair, I was responding to someone claiming a 25% flat tax would save most American's money.

I know wrong doesn't have actual degrees but if it did "no one pays 35%" is still closer to the truth than "a 25% flat tax saves everyone money".

[Clocker]

Federal income tax paid/AGI, I don't think there are.

I'll have to back off my "no one". I don't know that. It's probable that across the entire tax paying population, there are some. But they are very few.


Very few. The highest bracket is 39.6%, and that is on ordinary income over $400K. You would have to have a lot of income in that top bracket to average out the lower rates on the first $400K. But there are people in that income range that pay over 50% in total taxes, including federal, state, and local.

Anyone making that much is probably paying a lot of it as capital gains tax, which is 20% for the highest earners. And they are paying a good tax accountant to find ways to avoid taxes. In Trump's leaked 2005 tax return, he paid an over-all rate of about 24% on many millions.

[AndyC]

Federal income tax paid/AGI, I don't think there are.

I'll have to back off my "no one". I don't know that. It's probable that across the entire tax paying population, there are some. But they are very few.

To be fair, I was responding to someone claiming a 25% flat tax would save most American's money.

I know wrong doesn't have actual degrees but if it did "no one pays 35%" is still closer to the truth than "a 25% flat tax saves everyone money".

Your statement wasn't FedTax/AGI. It was total income tax/AGI. A person can absolutely pay a FedTax/AGI of 35%+.

To be fair with the flat tax, most proposals I have seen have a hefty exemption amount so that a single person making $40,000 may not pay a nickel due to the exemption.

[AndyC]

.......Anyone making that much is probably paying a lot of it as capital gains tax, which is 20% for the highest earners. And they are paying a good tax accountant to find ways to avoid taxes. In Trump's leaked 2005 tax return, he paid an over-all rate of about 24% on many millions.

You would be shocked by the amount of people having W-2s showing millions in earnings.

The top capital gains rate is 23.8%.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Federal income tax paid/AGI, I don't think there are.

I'll have to back off my "no one". I don't know that. It's probable that across the entire tax paying population, there are some. But they are very few.

To be fair, I was responding to someone claiming a 25% flat tax would save most American's money.

I know wrong doesn't have actual degrees but if it did "no one pays 35%" is still closer to the truth than "a 25% flat tax saves everyone money".

The proposed Flat Tax "brackets" are 10%, 25%, and 35%. That is a flat tax.

Nobody making less than $17,000 or so (May be wrong on this number, but there is one) will pay a nickel in Federal Income Taxes, so yes, there will be a floor.

I'd be in favor of ramping up from 0% to 10% obviously based upon income, but I am all for this bracket.

Either way 10% is outstanding. The poorest of the poor actually working and bringing in income are taxed below previous levels. (Even the diehard Dems and Obama couldn't bring those kinds of promises home for "their" supposed voters and supporters.)

Top end of 35%? Yeah, with basically zero deductions, I'd be fairly certain that most (most as in > 51%) will pay more in Federal Taxes than they ever would have before in previous years. Any percentage going up in THIS tax bracket makes up for millions of people in "tax breaks" in other brackets, amirite?

But hey, lets just throw around stupid crap like nearly 40% and now 35%, and our Prez is giving the rich a Tax break. Schumer and Pelosi already have that craziness covered.

[chadk66]

there may be a hell of a lot that pay 35% via Alternative Minimum Tax

[FantasticDan]

*BUMP*

GOP tax plan unveiled:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/us/politics/tax-plan-republicans.html

[boxcar]

Every time a Republican cuts taxes, some American who really needs help gets screwed.

But the GOP in all their magnanimous glory don't care. The rich have got to get richer (while promising more jobs and great tax breaks for all!!) :jump:

Even though half the country needs a federal income tax break like horseplayers need a higher takeout.

And good jobs never seem to trickle down.

And let's not forget the religious have to be pacified!! Otherwise who the hell would ever vote Republican? (Oh yea, those pesky straight shooters who don't see a problem with just about everybody packin' would. :popcorn: )

I see you have all the stupid leftist talking points memorized.

[boxcar]

Not only was I seriously going to, I seriously did! :ThmbUp:

Why is precisely why so few of us take you seriously.

[Tom]

Republican tax plans pout people in jobs.
Democrat tax plans put people on food stamps.

[chadk66]

Republican tax plans pout people in jobs.
Democrat tax plans put people on food stamps.and this is really the nuts and bolts of it.

[FantasticDan]

Republican tax plans pout people in jobs.
This Republican tax plans mostly benefits the wealthy and super-wealthy and will add $$$$$$$$ to the deficit.

Still on board, right?

[_______]

The pass through provisions allowing individuals to claim the lower business tax rate seems ripe for abuse. Or just intelligent use of the rules if you prefer.

If _______ pays a 25% rate but _______,inc. 20% who wouldn’t find a way to classify their income as business if at all plausible? Every Doctor and Lawyer in the country will just turn themselves into a LLP if they haven’t already. As will a lot of other individuals.

I understand all the wheels are still in motion and the lobbyists are just getting started but this one stuck out for me. It had been hinted at all year.

I can’t find specifics on the limits for gambling losses which I assume might be of interest to some on this board. Anyone else have better luck?

[therussmeister]

there may be a hell of a lot that pay 35% via Alternative Minimum Tax

AMT would be eliminated.

[thaskalos]

I can’t find specifics on the limits for gambling losses which I assume might be of interest to some on this board. Anyone else have better luck?

I would have to guess that the gambling-loss rate for most players is about 100%.

[Parkview_Pirate]

I can’t find specifics on the limits for gambling losses which I assume might be of interest to some on this board. Anyone else have better luck?

Found this older link on earlier versions of the plan. If accurate, it would be a game changer for horseplayers. Illinois was like this when I was a resident.

https://www.nmcpa.com/blog/deductions-eliminated-under-trumps-tax-reform-proposal/42502

Gambling Losses – Currently, gambling losses are only deductible in an amount equal to gambling winnings. Under Trump’s plan, these losses would no longer be deductible, meaning that taxpayers would have to pay taxes on all their winnings – even if they have net losses. Senior citizens and others who gamble recreationally could be hit with significant taxes even when they actually lose money.

[AndyC]

The pass through provisions allowing individuals to claim the lower business tax rate seems ripe for abuse. Or just intelligent use of the rules if you prefer.

If _______ pays a 25% rate but _______,inc. 20% who wouldn’t find a way to classify their income as business if at all plausible? Every Doctor and Lawyer in the country will just turn themselves into a LLP if they haven’t already. As will a lot of other individuals.

I understand all the wheels are still in motion and the lobbyists are just getting started but this one stuck out for me. It had been hinted at all year.

I can’t find specifics on the limits for gambling losses which I assume might be of interest to some on this board. Anyone else have better luck?

Personal service income will not be able to take advantage of lower business rates. Income earned that would typically be equivalent to wages cannot be turned into "business income" at the lower rate.

[AndyC]

Found this older link on earlier versions of the plan. If accurate, it would be a game changer for horseplayers. Illinois was like this when I was a resident.

https://www.nmcpa.com/blog/deductions-eliminated-under-trumps-tax-reform-proposal/42502

If I read the bill correctly the only change for gambling losses would affect professional players. Under current law professional gamblers can create a net operating loss by deducting their costs of gambling. Costs include internet, racing forms, travel, etc. The change would treat all costs as gambling losses subject to the gambling winnings limitation.

[AndyC]

This Republican tax plans mostly benefits the wealthy and super-wealthy and will add $$$$$$$$ to the deficit.

Still on board, right?

What provision in the bill makes you believe that the wealthy and super-wealthy will be most benefited?

[FantasticDan]

What provision in the bill makes you believe that the wealthy and super-wealthy will be most benefited?
Plenty of articles out there detailing how..

https://www.vox.com/2017/11/2/16596896/house-republican-tax-reform-cuts-trump-ryan-explained

http://theweek.com/articles/734855/how-republican-tax-bill-takes-from-rich-give-extremely-rich

[AndyC]

Plenty of articles out there detailing how..

https://www.vox.com/2017/11/2/16596896/house-republican-tax-reform-cuts-trump-ryan-explained

http://theweek.com/articles/734855/how-republican-tax-bill-takes-from-rich-give-extremely-rich

The articles would have you believe that only rich people own stocks and get dividends. And because the dividends will be increased due to lower corporate taxes only the rich will benefit. Of course this kind of ridiculous thinking doesn't consider all of the public pensions, private pensions, 401-Ks, and IRAs that are invested in stocks that will benefit. Most US cities and state governments are under major economic stress because of underfunding of pension plans. Can more dividends really be a problem?

[Tom]

If the GOP is solidly behind passing this, them I am worried.
they are never 100% behind the people, only themselves.

Sounds like a rush job for talking points and nothing of any substance for us. Where is the sound, well thought out plan they had 8 freaking years to design?

Do not trust the GOP, especially when they tell you they are doing a good job for you.

Bottom line, the GOP just lack the balls to do anything the dems will not like. They are sniveling cowards and liars.

[incoming]

If the GOP is solidly behind passing this, them I am worried.
they are never 100% behind the people, only themselves.

Sounds like a rush job for talking points and nothing of any substance for us. Where is the sound, well thought out plan they had 8 freaking years to design?

Do not trust the GOP, especially when they tell you they are doing a good job for you.

Bottom line, the GOP just lack the balls to do anything the dems will not like. They are sniveling cowards and liars.

Agreed....they are the best of a worthless lot.:puke:

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/sethhanlon/status/927341768529580032

[MutuelClerk]

Tax The Churches.

[Tom]

Tax Churches, yes, absolutely.
Tax cuts for the wealthy -:sleeping: You libs need to get a new schtick.,...that lie has been used for too many years now, and it is a lie.

btw, who is Seth Hanlon and who really cares?

[Clocker]

Seth Hanlon @SethHanlon (https://twitter.com/SethHanlon)

16 hours before the markup, Rs still discussing blowing up the healthcare system to "pay for" millionaire tax cuts.https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/powerpost/using-tax-legislation-to-overhaul-obamacare-still-being-discussed-ryan-says/2017/11/05/bcd3dce0-c0e4-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html … (https://t.co/Ivzkt6ova7)

Seth Hanlon and others need to read the linked articles before posting them.

Despite the research and President Trump's pleas, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) said Friday that he is unlikely to add changes to health-care policy to the tax legislation, because doing so would doom its chances in the more closely divided Senate.

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/jonathanchait/status/927565164576206848

[Tom]

Oh, well, there you go.
Someone said on twitter.
Must be true. :rolleyes:

Is this guy your a quoting some kind of "Pie man"? :pound:

[Clocker]

The richest 1% of America gets half the Trump tax cuts http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/the-richest-one-percent-of-u-s-gets-half-the-trump-tax-cuts.html … (https://t.co/6aVUb3Rr0H)

More fun with carefully selected numbers.

The richest 1% will get half the Trump tax cuts. Duh! The richest 1% pay half of all federal income taxes.

Last I saw, about 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax. I'm surprised the geniuses on Twitter aren't whining about them not getting any benefit from the tax bill.

[reckless]

I can assure you that from top to bottom, this GOP bill is a joke. FWIW.

But my real gripe these days is the lack of any sort of financial acumen by those discussing this tax bill by many people in the media, especially the business media.

Anyone playing the 'tax cuts for the rich' game... or the 'rich will benefit the most game', yada yada yada, simply is clueless on our Constitution and history. And that includes those that play the dumb politically expedient angle often played by people like Donald Trump (sad to say) and Warren Buffett (a lifelong phony) when they say: 'I'm a billionaire and all my wealthy friends say we aren't taxed enough; that we have enough money ...' Stupidity to that effect.

What is being ignored is this... regardless of an individual person's wealth or income, it is both unfair and un-American for government to decide that one person must be taxed differently than another person. If we really are a country where all 'men are created equal', then this tax bill must be denounced and a true honest tax overhaul must be enacted.

It should not matter if a person makes $1 million a year or $10,000 a year, that money belongs to the individual citizen. They earned it, whatever the amount. The individual should be taxed at the same rate and by the same tax laws, equally. Money --wealth, income, hard assets, cash-- is a product of the sovereign individual's work alone and not of the government.

[AndyC]

I can assure you that from top to bottom, this GOP bill is a joke. FWIW.

I completely disagree. The bill does a tremendous job of starting the process of simplification and reform. When I read the bill I was surprised at how comprehensive it is. There is a lot of complaining because the bill takes away so many of the goodies that people have taken advantage of for so many years.

[reckless]

I completely disagree. The bill does a tremendous job of starting the process of simplification and reform. When I read the bill I was surprised at how comprehensive it is. There is a lot of complaining because the bill takes away so many of the goodies that people have taken advantage of for so many years.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, of course, but you say this bill is 'starting the process ...' Andy, for 50 + years the GOP has run on a platform of being the party of less, low and a simple tax system. Just like the ObamaCare 'repeal' scam... the GOP simply refuses to get legislation passed on issues that were their core issues for many years.

This bill was done primarily to get the Senate to shoot it down, and by extension, to make Trump look bad. That's what the GOP thinks anyway, that it will be Trump who will look bad. The GOP will be in for a rude awakening come 2018.

How much of 'tax reform' was thought through by the GOP or even 'comprehensive' when they didn't make the tax 'cuts' retroactive? They even had an out loud thought about cutting the amount of deduction after a 401(k) contradiction. Are they kidding?

This goes way beyond the GOP just being stupid.

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/927639240418168832

[Tom]

Oh yes, Vox.com - the final word on everything.:pound::pound::pound:

[FantasticDan]

Oh yes, Vox.com - the final word on everything.:pound::pound::pound:Why are you attacking a source/story critical of the tax plan when you posted this in the same thread?

If the GOP is solidly behind passing this, them I am worried. they are never 100% behind the people, only themselves. Sounds like a rush job for talking points and nothing of any substance for us. Where is the sound, well thought out plan they had 8 freaking years to design?

[AndyC]

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, of course, but you say this bill is 'starting the process ...' Andy, for 50 + years the GOP has run on a platform of being the party of less, low and a simple tax system. Just like the ObamaCare 'repeal' scam... the GOP simply refuses to get legislation passed on issues that were their core issues for many years.

This bill was done primarily to get the Senate to shoot it down, and by extension, to make Trump look bad. That's what the GOP thinks anyway, that it will be Trump who will look bad. The GOP will be in for a rude awakening come 2018.

How much of 'tax reform' was thought through by the GOP or even 'comprehensive' when they didn't make the tax 'cuts' retroactive? They even had an out loud thought about cutting the amount of deduction after a 401(k) contradiction. Are they kidding?

This goes way beyond the GOP just being stupid.

The process means unwinding all of the social engineering and feel-good statutes that permeate the IRC. there are so many sacred cows in the IRC that making a wholesale change could never fly politically. The House bill is a good start to turning things around.

Making tax cuts retroactive is easy if you are only considering rates. Because of the changes to actually computing taxable income it is unrealistic to make it retroactive. Also very unfair to people who planned based on a system in place.

Most people would be far better off to fund their 401-K plans with after tax dollars and have all withdrawals be tax free. The problem is that many people need a big carrot to save any money for retirement. The change would have been a timing issue giving the government more taxes upfront but certainly losing more taxes on the back end.

[AndyC]

https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/927639240418168832

I love this line. "The poorest families, earning less than $10,000 a year, would see a minuscule tax cut of only $10 on average, or 0.1 percent of income."

Any family earning $10,000 per year is not paying any taxes, ever! They are receiving welfare via the earned income tax credit. By gosh they deserve a tax cut too!

[garyscpa]

I love this line. "The poorest families, earning less than $10,000 a year, would see a minuscule tax cut of only $10 on average, or 0.1 percent of income."

Any family earning $10,000 per year is not paying any taxes, ever! They are receiving welfare via the earned income tax credit. By gosh they deserve a tax cut too!

It's only fair. :lol:

[Parkview_Pirate]

If I read the bill correctly the only change for gambling losses would affect professional players. Under current law professional gamblers can create a net operating loss by deducting their costs of gambling. Costs include internet, racing forms, travel, etc. The change would treat all costs as gambling losses subject to the gambling winnings limitation.

This link has some more details on section 1305, which I would interpret the same way you did. What I don't understand is the projected $100M in additional "revenue" from the change. Since gamblers, professional or otherwise, would need to show a profit on a regular basis, I can't believe this loophole is used that much.

http://www.statesman.com/news/national-govt--politics/gop-tax-plan-keeps-gambling-loss-deduction-and-the-complexity-behind/txFLG85Jb0tqOOBSDLxlEP/

Maybe the whales change their LLPs or C-corps every few years?

[AndyC]

This link has some more details on section 1305, which I would interpret the same way you did. What I don't understand is the projected $100M in additional "revenue" from the change. Since gamblers, professional or otherwise, would need to show a profit on a regular basis, I can't believe this loophole is used that much.

http://www.statesman.com/news/national-govt--politics/gop-tax-plan-keeps-gambling-loss-deduction-and-the-complexity-behind/txFLG85Jb0tqOOBSDLxlEP/

Maybe the whales change their LLPs or C-corps every few years?

The author kind of missed the point of the law change. It doesn't apply at all to "other miscellaneous deductions" which limits deductions only to gambling losses. Ancillary costs of gambling cannot be deducted and never could as an itemized deduction. The law hits squarely on professional gamblers. The damage was already done to the amateurs via the expanded standard deduction. Thankfully the new reporting and withholding regulations will minimize the damage from the standard deduction.

[garyscpa]

Well, I didn't read it yet, but are all winnings still supposed to be reported on page 1?

[AndyC]

Well, I didn't read it yet, but are all winnings still supposed to be reported on page 1?

Yes.

[garyscpa]

And no netting of wins and losses, or sessions?

[mostpost]

More fun with carefully selected numbers.

The richest 1% will get half the Trump tax cuts. Duh! The richest 1% pay half of all federal income taxes.

Last I saw, about 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax. I'm surprised the geniuses on Twitter aren't whining about them not getting any benefit from the tax bill.
They pay 35% according to the Tax Foundation. But they are probably a bunch of lying liberals.

Also according to the Tax Foundation, that same richest 1% had an average Annual Gross Income (AGI) of $1,138,992. The bottom 50% had an average Annual Gross Income (AGI) of $14,065.

That means the rich guy made 81 times what the poor guy made. However he only paid 12 times as much in Federal income tax.

And we are supposed to feel sorry for these guys?

[Tom]

And we are supposed to feel sorry for these guys?

I wouldn't feel sorry for them.
Maybe they would earn more if they had any get up and go, or didn't waste their time on a liberal arts degree.

[davew]

They pay 35% according to the Tax Foundation. But they are probably a bunch of lying liberals.

Also according to the Tax Foundation, that same richest 1% had an average Annual Gross Income (AGI) of $1,138,992. The bottom 50% had an average Annual Gross Income (AGI) of $14,065.

That means the rich guy made 81 times what the poor guy made. However he only paid 12 times as much in Federal income tax.

And we are supposed to feel sorry for these guys?

Are we supposed to subsidize the 25% that do not work because they can get just as much from the government for doing nothing?

Why do you say rich guy only paid 12 times as much in Federal when the poor guy pays nothing but gets paid?

[Clocker]

They pay 35% according to the Tax Foundation. But they are probably a bunch of lying liberals.



They pay over 45% according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

[FantasticDan]

:D

https://twitter.com/nxthompson/status/927612398198050817

[tucker6]

they are probably a bunch of lying liberals.



We finally agree on something, but your sentence is a tad redundant. For example, if you take out the word "lying" it doesn't change the meaning at all.

[AndyC]

And no netting of wins and losses, or sessions?

No netting. I haven't seen sessions reporting utilized in horse betting too much, I believe that was allowed for slots (IRS Advice Memorandum 2008-011) due to the difficulty of record keeping. No mention that racing will be allowed to use the method.

[Tom]

A short video that explains America’s tax code.
Taxes for Dummies.

[Clocker]

Rand Paul is looking to give the Dems a taste of their own ObamaCare medicine. OCare was declared Constitutional because SCOTUS ruled that the individual mandate was a tax. So Paul is offering an amendment to the tax bill to repeal the mandate tax.

Mitch McConnell announced that he will support the mandate repeal. The repeal will count as part of the tax cuts provided by the bill, and Dems who vote against it are voting against tax cuts for the middle class.

Who knows, it might even save the average family $2500 a year. :cool:

[chadk66]

Rand Paul is looking to give the Dems a taste of their own ObamaCare medicine. OCare was declared Constitutional because SCOTUS ruled that the individual mandate was a tax. So Paul is offering an amendment to the tax bill to repeal the mandate tax.

Mitch McConnell announced that he will support the mandate repeal. The repeal will count as part of the tax cuts provided by the bill, and Dems who vote against it are voting against tax cuts for the middle class.

Who knows, it might even save the average family $2500 a year. :cool:geniu:ThmbUp:s

[FantasticDan]

Kudos to Rep. John Larson for his scathing rebuke of the "process" (or lack of same) which led to the GOP's bill..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcd5zaWhQbg

[Clocker]

Kudos to Rep. John Larson for his scathing rebuke of the "process" (or lack of same) which led to the GOP's bill..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcd5zaWhQbg

Didn't watch, because all of that stuff from both sides of the aisle is "theater".

Since Larson was a Democratic member of the House that passed ObamaCare, he has no credible standing to be criticizing "process".

I haven't been paying attention to this one, but I'm sure the GOP process on the tax cut is as partisan as what Pelosi was doing when she had the hammer. Some times you just get hoist on your own petard.

[FantasticDan]

Didn't watch, because all of that stuff from both sides of the aisle is "theater".

Since Larson was a Democratic member of the House that passed ObamaCare, he has no credible standing to be criticizing "process".

Watch it. Seems like you have five minutes to spare. :p

Then we can compare the Obamacare process (did that have zero hearings and expert testimonies too?) to this bill..

[Clocker]

Watch it. Seems like you have five minutes to spare. :p



I'm too busy making up and planting fake news about Democrats. Somebody has to do it.


Then we can compare the Obamacare process (did that have zero hearings and expert testimonies too?) to this bill..The real ObamaCare hearings took place behind closed doors in Dem offices and conference rooms. The tame "experts" were the ones that testified that the average family would save $2500 a year, that if you liked your doctor..., and similar fairy tales.

It's all kabuki theater on both sides. Only the actors change from term to term.

[AndyC]

They pay 35% according to the Tax Foundation. But they are probably a bunch of lying liberals.

Also according to the Tax Foundation, that same richest 1% had an average Annual Gross Income (AGI) of $1,138,992. The bottom 50% had an average Annual Gross Income (AGI) of $14,065.

That means the rich guy made 81 times what the poor guy made. However he only paid 12 times as much in Federal income tax.

And we are supposed to feel sorry for these guys?

In 2016, a single person with no dependents earning $14,065 would have paid $311 in tax. In 2017 under either the house or senate plan they would pay zero.

If your statement above is correct the average rich guy making $1,138,992 would have paid $3,732 in tax. (12 X $311) Of course the above statement is complete nonsense. It would even be nonsense if you stated that the rich guy only paid 81 times more than the poor guy or $25,191.

[AndyC]

In this article is a breakdown of taxes paid by income levels for 2014. Not exactly supporting the claims made above.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/

[FantasticDan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNpZpmxO8Gw

[porchy44]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNpZpmxO8Gw


GOD OF DAY AND GOD OF DARKNESS*(HYMN)

Still the nations curse the darkness,
still the rich oppress the poor;
still the earth is bruised and broken
by the ones who still want more.
Come and wake us from our sleeping,
so our hearts cannot ignore,
all your people lost and broken,
all your children at our door.

[porchy44]

Another thing, democrats and republicans are STEALING from future generations by growing the deficit. How they can sit there with a straight face and say, '"The economic growth will offset the deficit the tax cuts create".

[AndyC]

Another thing, democrats and republicans are STEALING from future generations by growing the deficit. How they can sit there with a straight face and say, '"The economic growth will offset the deficit the tax cuts create".

How can anybody sit there with a straight face and say that tax cuts are the problem? Could it be that spending is the problem?

[Clocker]

Could it be that spending is the problem?

No, that's not it. Steny Hoyer, Number 2 Democrat in the House when Pelosi was speaker, said:

Does the country have a spending problem? The country has a paying-for problem. We haven't paid for what we bought.

[jocko699]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNpZpmxO8Gw

Dan,

I saw this on youtube and thought it may have been you:pound::pound::pound:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ytei6bu7kQ&t=38s

[FantasticDan]

Dan,

I saw this on youtube and thought it may have been you:pound::pound::pound:

I WISH it was me. Loved the Muppet Show as a kid and ManaMana was the best :ThmbUp:

[jocko699]

I WISH it was me. Loved the Muppet Show as a kid and ManaMana was the best :ThmbUp:

The best!

[kingfin66]

How can anybody sit there with a straight face and say that tax cuts are the problem? Could it be that spending is the problem?

But why have tax cuts without spending cuts? We are just adding another $1.5 trillion to the budget? Does anybody even care anymore?

[Clocker]

But why have tax cuts without spending cuts? We are just adding another $1.5 trillion to the budget? Does anybody even care anymore?

They claim to care, but they just don't get it. There are Kool Aid drinkers on both sides of the aisle. Those on the left believe that the rich aren't paying their "fair share", and that if they did, we could fund an ever-increasing welfare state without more deficits.

Those on the right believe that if we cut tax rates, the increased consumer spending and business investment will generate sufficient increases in tax revenue to eliminate deficits. But even if tax revenues increased, spending is growing much faster.

Both sides are so full of crap that the whites of their eyes have turned brown. The alternatives are to cut spending or to continue to watch this country slide down the slippery slope into a Euro "socialist democracy". I see no one, even in the leadership on the right (including Trump), that understands this. And I have no hope that they will.

[classhandicapper]

I'm in favor of tax reform that simplifies the tax code, but I'm not in favor tax cuts unless they are accompanied by equal spending cuts.

There's some evidence we need corporate tax cuts because companies have been leaving the US, doing inversions just to avoid taxes, and also have loads of cash overseas they don't want to bring home because it would trigger another round of taxes. But it also sort of feels like we are in a race to the bottom on taxes. If we lower corporate taxes to get more competitive, what's to stop our competitors from doing the same thing. Then we are right back in the same relative position except both countries are running bigger deficits.

I'm also in the middle on this whole rich vs. poor thing.

The rich definitely pay the vast majority of the taxes and that percentage has been growing. However, part of that is because they are earning an ever larger percentage of the income and wealth creation.

There are 2 political spins to the math.

Liberals like to point out that tax cuts generate a lot more income for the rich, but fail to acknowledge the basic math that a small percentage of a much bigger number is a bigger number.

Conservatives like to point out the correct math, but fail to acknowledge that the middle class was gutted by all the free trade deals and "owners" have been getting richer and richer at their expense. That's why they are paying a larger percentage of the taxes.

[AndyC]

I'm in favor of tax reform that simplifies the tax code, but I'm not in favor tax cuts unless they are accompanied by equal spending cuts.

We don't need spending cuts just a spending freeze. Tax cuts do create more tax revenue through economic growth.

There's some evidence we need corporate tax cuts because companies have been leaving the US, doing inversions just to avoid taxes, and also have loads of cash overseas they don't want to bring home because it would trigger another round of taxes. But it also sort of feels like we are in a race to the bottom on taxes. If we lower corporate taxes to get more competitive, what's to stop our competitors from doing the same thing. Then we are right back in the same relative position except both countries are running bigger deficits..........

There is just so much juice in the lemon. Our competitors could squeeze more but I doubt that would be enough taxes left to cut to make a difference.

I would argue that your assumption that corporate taxes not collected would increase the deficit is wrong.


The rich definitely pay the vast majority of the taxes and that percentage has been growing. However, part of that is because they are earning an ever larger percentage of the income and wealth creation.

There are 2 political spins to the math.

Liberals like to point out that tax cuts generate a lot more income for the rich, but fail to acknowledge the basic math that a small percentage of a much bigger number is a bigger number.

Conservatives like to point out the correct math, but fail to acknowledge that the middle class was gutted by all the free trade deals and "owners" have been getting richer and richer at their expense. That's why they are paying a larger percentage of the taxes.


Why is wealth creation always described as a zero sum game? If people are creating wealth and making money it doesn't mean that they are doing it at the expense of someone else creating wealth and making money.

[classhandicapper]

We don't need spending cuts just a spending freeze. Tax cuts do create more tax revenue through economic growth.

Agreed. I misused the term the way the media and liberals always do. What I meant was relative to what spending would be. Spending could still be growing. It would just have to grow at a slower rate that currently projected.

I would argue that your assumption that corporate taxes not collected would increase the deficit is wrong.

There may be some level at which a reduction in tax rates increases revenue enough to pay for them, but I'm not buying it as a prudent fiscally conservative assumption now. It should be a hope, not a plan.

Why is wealth creation always described as a zero sum game? If people are creating wealth and making money it doesn't mean that they are doing it at the expense of someone else creating wealth and making money.
Today 09:48 AM

I agree with this statement, but not in terms of free trade.

The net of free trade so far was to transfer jobs and wealth accumulation to foreign countries that offered a better deal to employers in terms of wages, taxation, regulation etc...

In return, those of us in the US that were employed in jobs that did not move got cheaper goods (a win) and stockholders got much higher profits and stock prices (a win). The rest of the people got crushed. (I was part of shareholder class and made out like a bandit).

I'm not buying the argument that there are always losers in business as we make progress. I agree with the statement, but the extent to which we gutted the middle class via free trade is a big part of the problem in the US and why Trump is president.

When standards of living, laws, wages, regulations, and government are similar, free trade works well. When they are not, it causes huge disruptions and creates large winners and losers. Eventually, another 50 years from now, when a lot of the losers are dead, it will all balance out and the world will be better off. But that's little consolation for the multiple generations that got screwed.

[AndyC]

...There may be some level at which a reduction in tax rates increases revenue enough to pay for them, but I'm not buying it as a prudent fiscally conservative assumption now. It should be a hope, not a plan.

Would a fiscal conservative believe that capital is better allocated through the private sector or through government spending? My view is that corporations will have more cash and will make decisions based on what is best for them. It might mean expansion of the business to increase profits, it may mean higher dividends which will increase tax revenue, it may be a stock buyback which might increase tax revenues from the sellers of stock, it might be a pay down of debt which will strengthen and or stabilize the business, or it might mean that it is invested whereby it helps others who are in need of capital.

I agree with this statement, but not in terms of free trade.

The net of free trade so far was to transfer jobs and wealth accumulation to foreign countries that offered a better deal to employers in terms of wages, taxation, regulation etc...

In return, those of us in the US that were employed in jobs that did not move got cheaper goods (a win) and stockholders got much higher profits and stock prices (a win). The rest of the people got crushed. (I was part of shareholder class and made out like a bandit).

I'm not buying the argument that there are always losers in business as we make progress. I agree with the statement, but the extent to which we gutted the middle class via free trade is a big part of the problem in the US and why Trump is president.

When standards of living, laws, wages, regulations, and government are similar, free trade works well. When they are not, it causes huge disruptions and creates large winners and losers. Eventually, another 50 years from now, when a lot of the losers are dead, it will all balance out and the world will be better off. But that's little consolation for the multiple generations that got screwed.

I believe that technology as much as free trade has caused problems for many workers. The emphasis on trade should be "fair" trade. There are losers everyday in business. Not necessarily a bad thing. Bad businesses or ones whose products are not wanted or needed should not be propped up.

[Clocker]

The net of free trade so far was to transfer jobs and wealth accumulation to foreign countries that offered a better deal to employers in terms of wages, taxation, regulation etc...



GDP consists of goods and services. Opponents of free trade tend to concentrate on the goods side. Even there, 80% of manufacturing jobs lost in recent years were lost to automation, only 20% were moved off-shore. Something like 50% of China's GDP is in manufacturing, while ours is only 20%.

Free trade also creates jobs here, like in your local imported car dealership or importers that distribute those goods or retailers that sell imported products. While an imbalance of goods results in an imbalance of money flowing out of the country, what doesn't come back in the form of purchases generally comes back as investment, either in the form of stocks and bonds or in direct investment such as Ikea stores or Toyota and Mercedes plants in the US. China can't just sit on our money, they have to do something with it, even if it is just buying our government bonds.

[classhandicapper]

GDP consists of goods and services. Opponents of free trade tend to concentrate on the goods side. Even there, 80% of manufacturing jobs lost in recent years were lost to automation, only 20% were moved off-shore. Something like 50% of China's GDP is in manufacturing, while ours is only 20%.

Free trade also creates jobs here, like in your local imported car dealership or importers that distribute those goods or retailers that sell imported products. While an imbalance of goods results in an imbalance of money flowing out of the country, what doesn't come back in the form of purchases generally comes back as investment, either in the form of stocks and bonds or in direct investment such as Ikea stores or Toyota and Mercedes plants in the US. China can't just sit on our money, they have to do something with it, even if it is just buying our government bonds.

I don't deny that automation matters. It always has. There are also clearly benefits to free trade long term. However, imo everyone that advocates free trade (and I used to be one of them) is in denial about the short term damage it has done to millions. They are intellectually invested in the theory or have benefited, so they don't see it.

As I said earlier, I realize there are always losers when it comes to economic progress, but imo the idea is to benefit many people and hurt only a few. It has been working the other way around. It has benefited a few a LOT and hurt many.

Trump explains it another way.

If we import 100 billion from country X and they import 50 billion from us, the gap is the trade deficit. They then take that extra 50 billion dollars and invest it in our stocks, bonds, and real estate to balance the capital account.

They get the extra jobs associated with that 50 billion and are getting richer on our assets and we get the cheaper depreciating cars, clothes, electronics etc..

That's not a good deal.

A good deal is where the trade is relatively balanced and the benefits are distributed fairly evenly between consumers, workers, and owners.

[classhandicapper]

Would a fiscal conservative believe that capital is better allocated through the private sector or through government spending? My view is that corporations will have more cash and will make decisions based on what is best for them. It might mean expansion of the business to increase profits, it may mean higher dividends which will increase tax revenue, it may be a stock buyback which might increase tax revenues from the sellers of stock, it might be a pay down of debt which will strengthen and or stabilize the business, or it might mean that it is invested whereby it helps others who are in need of capital.

My view (as a fiscal conservative) is that the private sector allocates capital way better than the public sector, but if I cut taxes and give an extra 100 billion (or whatever) to the private sector, I will get faster economic growth, but not enough to make up the full 100 billion. So I should slow the growth of spending to keep the budget in sync.

The left lives in the fantasy that you can keep increasing spending, raising taxes, lowering interest rates artificially, and printing money without any negative economic impact.

The right lives in the fantasy that tax cuts pay for themselves.

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/gavinnewsom/status/933093006286004225

[Tom]

No problem - let Bitchy Mitchy and his ilk pay their own Viagra.
That should take care of at least half of it.

[Clocker]

A good deal is where the trade is relatively balanced and the benefits are distributed fairly evenly between consumers, workers, and owners.

And you think that the government can do a better job of that than the private sector? Why would you say that the private sector can do a better job of managing investment but not of managing trade? And trade restrictions result in higher prices and fewer choices for consumers.

Any government regulation or restriction on imports becomes a highly political issue, resulting in a stampede of affected US businesses to influence legislators and the executive branch. It inhibits innovation and inflates prices. But it would create jobs -- for lobbyists.

And where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the authority and duty to determine and enforce a "fair" distribution of benefits from commerce? "Fair" is an opinion, not an objective fact. How much sense did Obama make preaching that the rich weren't paying their fair share?

[OntheRail]

No problem - let Bitchy Mitchy and his ilk pay their own Viagra.
That should take care of at least half of it.

And if we insist they pay for their own hookers and hooch that should cover the rest. :coffee:

[classhandicapper]

And you think that the government can do a better job of that than the private sector? Why would you say that the private sector can do a better job of managing investment but not of managing trade? And trade restrictions result in higher prices and fewer choices for consumers.

Any government regulation or restriction on imports becomes a highly political issue, resulting in a stampede of affected US businesses to influence legislators and the executive branch. It inhibits innovation and inflates prices. But it would create jobs -- for lobbyists.

And where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the authority and duty to determine and enforce a "fair" distribution of benefits from commerce? "Fair" is an opinion, not an objective fact. How much sense did Obama make preaching that the rich weren't paying their fair share?

We already have a trade policy that was put together by the government.

Who do you think negotiated NAFTA and all the other trade deals around the world that shifted jobs and wealth and helped destroy the US middle class?

Who do you think lowers interest rates and prints money to weaken their currencies and gain a trade advantage?

Who do you think protects domestic industries so the the US and other countries can't export and compete?

It's a difficult situation, but one thing is certain. We can't continue doing what we are doing now. The deals have to be fair, we can't allow currency manipulation, and they have to produce balanced trade.

[Clocker]

We already have a trade policy that was put together by the government.

Who do you think negotiated NAFTA and all the other trade deals around the world that shifted jobs and wealth and helped destroy the US middle class?



We should not have a trade policy or NAFTA or anything else. Trying to fix them will just make them worse. Throw them all out and let the private sector businesses work out their own trade policies.

Who do you think lowers interest rates and prints money to weaken their currencies and gain a trade advantage? You mean besides the Federal Reserve? Our government needs to stop doing it here. It is stealth taxation, done in part to make our deficit spending seems better than it really is. A stable dollar means even greater inflows of foreign investment.

Who cares if China does it. It just increases the buying power of American consumers and hurts the Chinese.

We can't continue doing what we are doing now. The deals have to be fair, we can't allow currency manipulation, and they have to produce balanced trade. Who defines "fair"? The businesses with the most and best lobbyists? The unions with the most members and political contributions?

Let the consumers decide with their purchases.

Everything I said above is, of course, irrelevant and impractical, because there is no way the politicians feeding at the public trough are going to act in the general interests of the public. They are going to keep pandering to the special interests and to the people that can deliver the votes, and call it "fair".

[davew]

I hope the new postcard has a line for donations to national treasury so the libs who are complaining about not paying enough have a chance to pay more.

[Tom]

It's that WE don't pay enough, not THEM.

[chadk66]

The tax package that gets put together will fully determine the mid terms. I'm not sure the dips shits on the red side of the aisle are smart enough to figure that out.

[Clocker]

The tax package that gets put together will fully determine the mid terms.

I doubt that. Remember that 47% of the population do not pay any federal income tax. How many of the rest will be significantly affected by the tax bill? How many will forget about it by next November, and have other issues on their minds? How many will vote a straight party ticket for the same party they always do?

[Ocala Mike]

The tax package that gets put together will fully determine the mid terms. I'm not sure the dips shits on the red side of the aisle are smart enough to figure that out.

They're in a tough spot. If they don't pass SOMETHING, there'll be a big goose egg on the scoreboard at halftime for the Trump administration (please don't invoke the SC appointee - not even a field goal). If they pass something that only helps the top 1% (likely), just as bad if not worse.

Dems are actually in the catbird seat right now, but they are the dip shits on the blue side of the aisle, so they probably won't capitalize on it.

[chadk66]

If they passed a comprehensive tax bill that cut taxes for everybody it would ensure a Trump second term. That's the last things these Rhino's want.

[fast4522]

They're in a tough spot. If they don't pass SOMETHING, there'll be a big goose egg on the scoreboard at halftime for the Trump administration (please don't invoke the SC appointee - not even a field goal). If they pass something that only helps the top 1% (likely), just as bad if not worse.

Dems are actually in the catbird seat right now, but they are the dip shits on the blue side of the aisle, so they probably won't capitalize on it.

Not going to pick apart anything but share a small snapshot:

I fellow I worked with was in a conversation with a few of us as he was saying he has two son's that he busted his chops paying for their college and they are both making over 200K a year, he continued to tell about the 6 beautiful grandchildren he has and why would he share views and positions that are not favorable to them. I left the more colorful comments out but will say the language was not friendly to the left.

I think NO one is in a catbird seat on this one, whoever can move this country from 3% to 4% or even higher like 5% will be viewed favorably. Those who try to block things will be viewed as commies, this logic might be wrong at election time but I doubt it.

[AndyC]

.... If they pass something that only helps the top 1% (likely), just as bad if not worse.

Dems are actually in the catbird seat right now, but they are the dip shits on the blue side of the aisle, so they probably won't capitalize on it.

If being in the catbird seat means spewing falsehoods about what the tax bill does or doesn't do then you are correct. Where do you read nonsense that the tax bill likely only help the top 1%. Ignorance is the dems biggest ally.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

If being in the catbird seat means spewing falsehoods about what the tax bill does or doesn't do then you are correct. Where do you read nonsense that the tax bill likely only help the top 1%. Ignorance is the dems biggest ally.

The spreading of the bullshit that only the top 1% will benefit from the Tax Reform bill is beyond disgusting.

Add on to that, Dems like Schumer whining that it will add $1.5 trillion to the debt over 10 years is laughable considering the past 8 years when these "budget minded" economic blowhards helped secure a doubling of our national debt of an additional $9 trillion in the last 8 years.

[Tom]

GOP had 8 years to get everything right on every major issue.
So far, they have nothing, nadda, zip.

Hey Pauly baby - nice job so far, you incompetent liar.
Eddy Munster had more political credibility than you do!~:pound::pound::pound:

Last night I was watching the Blob on TV.....I thought it was Mitch McConnel's life story.

[Track Collector]

GOP had 8 years to get everything right on every major issue.
So far, they have nothing, nadda, zip.

Hey Pauly baby - nice job so far, you incompetent liar.
Eddy Munster had more political credibility than you do!~:pound::pound::pound:

Last night I was watching the Blob on TV.....I thought it was Mitch McConnel's life story.

The Republican leadership is definitely not incompetent. Everything they do is filtered thru the will of their donor class. The folks they are beholden to, and who more than certainly have a different agenda than Trump. The only aspect that these Republicans and donor class don't have absolute control over is total population of those who have the ability to vote the politicians in and out of office. When out of office one loses a significant platform to wield power and control. That is why we can cling to a tiny bit of hope that politicians will once and a while actually be willing participants in legislation that will help the masses.

The primaries are the people's best opportunity to express our will and to help clean house.

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/935904801380098060

[AndyC]

https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/935904801380098060

Typical liberal fear-mongering. The writer assumes the most unlikely scenario and then claims that will be the result of the tax package.

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/simonmaloy/status/936333954831003651

[AndyC]

https://twitter.com/simonmaloy/status/936333954831003651

Apparently this rocket scientist Simon Maloy suffers from the same malady most liberals suffer from....ignorance. He actually retweeted this nonsense "I made a regrettably ghoulish remark about John McCain voting for a tax bill that would increase taxes on people making between $40,000 and $50,000 by $5.3 billion, decrease taxes on people making over $1 million by $5.8 billion, and lead to 15,600 more deaths per year because 13 million people will lose their health insurance, and you think the story here is the tone of my tweet.”

People making between $40,000 and $50,000 will not be paying more tax. And people certainly won't be dying if they lose health insurance. Was that the way it was before Obamacare? Bodies lying in the street waiting for the death wagon to cart them off all for the lack of health insurance. If people are so poor that they can't afford health insurance surely they can't afford the deductibles required by an Obamacare policy. Either way they can't pay for their healthcare and they become a dependent of the state. I have never seen a story on any of the liberal newscasts where a poor person without insurance was denied healthcare at an emergency room and subsequently died as a result. Because if it did actually happen it would be shown 24/7 on all those "newscasts".

[Tom]

What school did Simon drop out of?

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/936595442883878913

[chadk66]

https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/936595442883878913what did you expect the left wing nut jobs to say:lol:. The republicans aren't going to do anything with taxes that will stimulate the economy. They majority of them would rather have a liberal president than Trump with another term. What they don't understand is how their ass is going to get handed to them in the mid terms.

[Clocker]

In fact, Senate bill breaks these 4 promises

You say that like anyone with an IQ above room temperature didn't know that was going to happen. :D

[Tom]

What school did Mark drop out of?

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/theatlantic/status/936702380443426816

[Clocker]

McConnell has been busy buying votes in the Senate, and it appears that they have enough now to pass the bill.

The latest "convert" is Susan Collins. She got a number of concessions (i.e., bribes), including restoration of cost-sharing payments to help prop up ObamaCare.

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/12/01/sen-collins-will-vote-yes-tax-bill/

[JustRalph]

From what I’ve read of it, it appears to be very good to the middle class and businesses, especially mid size to small.

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/936718515842797569

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/936758825431973888

[elysiantraveller]

No one on here who has ever complained about the national debt should be in favor of this tax bill.

[Tom]

......plutocrats and their useless failsons?

I never thought I would hear anyone say that!

[reckless]

From what I’ve read of it, it appears to be very good to the middle class and businesses, especially mid size to small.

Of course it is a good bill, JR... why do you think the liberals and anti-Trumpsters on this site who call themselves Republicans and conservatives keep knocking it and Trump?

[reckless]

No one on here who has ever complained about the national debt should be in favor of this tax bill.

Forget here. Anyone in Congress who opposed this bill on the grounds 'the deficit will go up' are disingenuous at the core and full of sh*t everywhere else.

I specifically mean the Democrats and GOP fraud Bob Corker, the latter who made it possible for Obama to give billions --mostly in cash, for chrissakes-- to enemy Iran in the illegal and unconstitutional Nuke deal.

[porchy44]

Forget here. Anyone in Congress who opposed this bill on the grounds 'the deficit will go up' are disingenuous at the core and full of sh*t everywhere else.

Anyone in Congress who voted for the bill, but less than a decade ago, they were outraged by a Democratic stimulus package increasing the debt by $787 billion, or about half the latest tax plan.

Are they not equally disingenuous and full of sh*t.

[Tom]

Tax cuts are mandatory, it is OUR money. Period.
But they are only half the problem.

spending cuts are equally mandatory.
There is no reason we could not cut federal spending by at least 30%, more like 50%.

Good start, ALL member of the congress get $0 pay and benefits and all congressional budgets are the same, no matter who the congressman or senator.

ALL expenses shared by a Congressional office pool, and no travel expenses to any of them. They pay their own way anywhere they go, including to and from DC.

That should buy Health Care for about 5 million people to start.

[elysiantraveller]

I specifically mean the Democrats and GOP fraud Bob Corker, the latter who made it possible for Obama to give billions --mostly in cash, for chrissakes-- to enemy Iran in the illegal and unconstitutional Nuke deal.

To use your own word this statement is disingenuous at best. We didn't "give" Iran anything other than their own money back which we froze.

Secondly, the "Obama and democrats did it so why can't I" argument doesn't hold water with me.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

No one on here who has ever complained about the national debt should be in favor of this tax bill.

I'd love to hear your answer as to what tax reform bill should be signed.

We'll add roughly $10 trillion in debt over the next 10 years if we don't change anything, much less add any tax cuts. Both Bush and Obama doubled the debt during their terms. This is a drop in the bucket of what they left behind.

Are you saying we should simply keep the status quo, don't give anybody any tax relief, and keep adding to the National Debt as we keep kicking the can down to the road for everybody that isn't a Baby Boomer to pay for?

[elysiantraveller]

Tax cuts are mandatory, it is OUR money. Period.
But they are only half the problem.

spending cuts are equally mandatory.
There is no reason we could not cut federal spending by at least 30%, more like 50%.

Good start, ALL member of the congress get $0 pay and benefits and all congressional budgets are the same, no matter who the congressman or senator.

ALL expenses shared by a Congressional office pool, and no travel expenses to any of them. They pay their own way anywhere they go, including to and from DC.

That should buy Health Care for about 5 million people to start.

Proper steps would be to revamp Social Security and Medicare... something this president says is off the table despite being GOP platform back in 2010 when the grand bargain talks were happening.

[elysiantraveller]

I'd love to hear your answer as to what tax reform bill should be signed.

We'll add roughly $10 trillion in debt over the next 10 years if we don't change anything, much less add any tax cuts. Both Bush and Obama doubled the debt during their terms. This is a drop in the bucket of what they left behind.

Are you saying we should simply keep the status quo, don't give anybody any tax relief, and keep adding to the National Debt as we keep kicking the can down to the road for everybody that isn't a Baby Boomer to pay for?

If you don't think this is kicking the can you're delusional.

[Fager Fan]

If you don't think this is kicking the can you're delusional.

Libs are the ones who want every freebie conceivable, so no lib should ever complain about the debt.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Proper steps would be to revamp Social Security and Medicare... something this president says is off the table despite being GOP platform back in 2010 when the grand bargain talks were happening.

I'm very glad to see that entitlement programs are on your list of the cutting table.

Problem is, there isn't a Congress-person that can run on a platform of entitlement cuts and get elected, much less a President. Our elders simply won't vote for the betterment of people after them. Even my parents that I love and cherish will vote against anybody that will change funding for SS or Medicare/Medicaid.

Thus, I'm sure the next move would be to cut defense spending which would put our country at serious risk since we have been involved in military actions around the world since WWII, and are the "world's keeper".

Those are the biggest buckets to cut, and the ones that have to be cut if we are ever to balance a budget and start paying back our ridiculous debt. Which sword do we fall upon?

[lamboguy]

i think this is a great plan and this is why. every plan whether it comes from a republican or democrat always favors the very rich. this one favors the rich and it also puts us in debt even bigger than what it is.

when you can't pay $20 trillion already, why not increase what you owe, it really doesn't make any difference and it pushes the inevitable down the road. when that day comes its not going to make any difference what you owe.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

If you don't think this is kicking the can you're delusional.

I exactly said it was kicking the can down the road in my 4 sentence response. What Bizarro-world did I just enter?

[elysiantraveller]

I exactly said it was kicking the can down the road in my 4 sentence response. What Bizarro-world did I just enter?

Sorry for the misunderstanding but yes we shouldn't give ANY form of tax relief if we can't find revenue neutral ways to offset it. I'm even okay with a little deficit spending what I'm not okay with is continuing to mortgage the future.

[Fager Fan]

Sorry for the misunderstanding but yes we shouldn't give ANY form of tax relief if we can't find revenue neutral ways to offset it. I'm even okay with a little deficit spending what I'm not okay with is continuing to mortgage the future.

Never heard of economy growth?

[JustRalph]

I read that if our economy grows one half of one percent over the next ten years, it makes this bill revenue neutral.

If that’s the case, why not take the "loan" it’s a very cheap rate

[Fager Fan]

I read that if our economy grows one half of one percent over the next ten years, it makes this bill revenue neutral.

If that’s the case, why not take the "loan" it’s a very cheap rate

I agree that economy growth results in more rev for the gov. The problem though with long term forecasts are the politicians who don't give us that full term. If a Dem beats Trump in 3 years, he'll immediately go for a tax increase (on the rich and evil corporations!).

[elysiantraveller]

I read that if our economy grows one half of one percent over the next ten years, it makes this bill revenue neutral.

If that’s the case, why not take the "loan" it’s a very cheap rate

Source?

[elysiantraveller]

I agree that economy growth results in more rev for the gov. The problem though with long term forecasts are the politicians who don't give us that full term. If a Dem beats Trump in 3 years, he'll immediately go for a tax increase (on the rich and evil corporations!).


Nah corporate tax rate will stay low. They are the largest campaign donors. Don't get me wrong I'm all in favor of lowering the corporate tax rate. I'm not in favor of a cut and spend government.

[zico20]

To use your own word this statement is disingenuous at best. We didn't "give" Iran anything other than their own money back which we froze.

Secondly, the "Obama and democrats did it so why can't I" argument doesn't hold water with me.

Just to set the record straight, we did not owe the current Iranian government one damn cent. The money you are referring to was under a different regime. Once they overthrew the Shah, our obligations to them was over.

[elysiantraveller]

I read that if our economy grows one half of one percent over the next ten years, it makes this bill revenue neutral.

If that’s the case, why not take the "loan" it’s a very cheap rate

That's before increased military spending, Trumps infrastructure spending, and of course... THE WALL. ;)

The guy hasn't spent any money... yet... this will grow the debt rapidly.

[elysiantraveller]

Just to set the record straight, we did not owe the current Iranian government one damn cent. The money you are referring to was under a different regime. Once they overthrew the Shah, our obligations to them was over.

How does that not make it disingenuous to say we gave Iran money when the discussion is revolving around the US National Deficit. They are so unrelated even bringing it up is laughable and a complete misdirection attempt.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

That's before increased military spending, Trumps infrastructure spending, and of course... THE WALL. ;)

The guy hasn't spent any money... yet... this will grow the debt rapidly.

Our infrastructure is shit, our military has to keep up so we don't get nuked, much less save the world, and The Wall would save Kate.

Where are you suggesting we cut?

[elysiantraveller]

Just to set the record straight, we did not owe the current Iranian government one damn cent. The money you are referring to was under a different regime. Once they overthrew the Shah, our obligations to them was over.

Not true. Most of those were released during the Algiers Accords...

Anywho...

How does that not make it disingenuous to say we gave Iran money when the discussion is revolving around the US National Deficit. They are so unrelated even bringing it up is laughable and a complete misdirection attempt.

[elysiantraveller]

Our infrastructure is shit, our military has to keep up so we don't get nuked, much less save the world, and The Wall would save Kate.

Where are you suggesting we cut?

I already said where we cut. Our military does not need anything more than the standard spending increases to say otherwise is silly. We face no conventional threats we can't easily handle. We do need infrastructure spending I agree but to say this administration is ANYTHING remotely close to revenue neutral is absurd.

That was my point. We don't really disagree but this plan is garbage if you fall into my demographic.

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/SenatorTester/status/936748480000921600

[reckless]

To use your own word this statement is disingenuous at best. We didn't "give" Iran anything other than their own money back which we froze.

Secondly, the "Obama and democrats did it so why can't I" argument doesn't hold water with me.

The GOP's role in their share of the $20 trillion deficit doesn't hold water with me either, in the probable case you thought otherwise.

As for the Iran deal ... if it was just giving then their money back ... why was it done circumventing the Congress? Why did Obama need to pile tons of cash, currency, etc. on a barge and ship it to them in the middle of the night?

If all that was on the up and up, why didn't Obama just write Iran a check and then give a speech explaining this. Or he could have simply unfroze the money on the basis 'because it's Iran's money', as you say. All of Obama's supporters ... the America haters, Wall Street and the banks, plus the compromised and stupid GOP senators, all would have been on board, no?

But yet, this dangerous Iran nuclear deal would have had way more difficulty getting done without Bob Corker! It is he you can thank for this illegal Iran deal getting done.

Corker's 'no' vote early Saturday morning on the Tax bill is just another example of someone who does not care for America nor America's success, either on the world stage or on the economic front.

Corker voting against this Senate Tax bill on the grounds of it is 'adding' to the deficit is simply a joke. Corker voted no solely to stick it to Trump. He could care less about working people and tax payers.

[Tom]

I was just handed a 479-page tax bill a few hours before the vote. One page literally has hand scribbled policy changes on it that can’t be read. This is Washington, D.C. at its worst. Montanans deserve so much better.

Here ya go, Jon.....remember this one?
The ACA?

The one you had to vote for to see what was in it?

Danny has a selective memory, but to refresh yours, here it is, shown in comparison to the height of Clint Eastwood. FOX news hired a speed reader to try to read it before the vote, but he failed - not even close.

Dan, shame on you for trying to pass this BS tweet off as something of any concern. But Jon is right about one thing....Montanans DO deserve something better.....better than HIM! :pound::pound::pound:

[kingfin66]

https://twitter.com/SenatorTester/status/936748480000921600

Thanks for posting this. I heard the audio on the way home from work last night, but could not find the video.

[kingfin66]

Here ya go, Jon.....remember this one?
The ACA?

The one you had to vote for to see what was in it?

Danny has a selective memory, but to refresh yours, here it is, shown in comparison to the height of Clint Eastwood. FOX news hired a speed reader to try to read it before the vote, but he failed - not even close.

Dan, shame on you for trying to pass this BS tweet off as something of any concern. But Jon is right about one thing....Montanans DO deserve something better.....better than HIM! :pound::pound::pound:

The point that the senator was trying to make was that the document was given to him just before a vote and without time to read or understand the amendments. Of course the ACA was a much larger document. The big difference in my mind is that Obama stepped back from trying to push it through in a similar manner and took the bill to the people. There was a lot of time between the amendment phase and the vote. Not a few hours.

[kingfin66]

I think that my family should come out okay on the new tax bill. We definitely do need to itemize so it will be interesting to see where that puts us. Dropping to the 24% tax rate will definitely be helpful as will keeping the property tax deduction. My property taxes are about $7,000 per year. I also still deduct a pretty good amount of mortgage insurance. As an individual, I am happy. As a fiscal conservative, I don't see this as being good overall for the country. People are citing info about the growth of the economy and its impact without posting sources.

The Joint Committee on Taxation tells a different story.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454261/jcts-dynamic-score-misses-mark-economic-growth-tax-plan

[Tom]

The point that the senator was trying to make was that the document was given to him just before a vote and without time to read or understand the amendments. Of course the ACA was a much larger document. The big difference in my mind is that Obama stepped back from trying to push it through in a similar manner and took the bill to the people. There was a lot of time between the amendment phase and the vote. Not a few hours.

and took the bill to the people. There was a lot of time between the amendment phase and the vote. Not a few hours.

Not the way I remember it. It was only a couple of days that anyone had time to read it - in facet, NO one read it all. FOX had a speed reader on set trying to gist it and he could not come close. It was never taken to the people. IT was pushed through without a single vote from anyone representing half of the country.

[Clocker]

Of course the ACA was a much larger document. The big difference in my mind is that Obama stepped back from trying to push it through in a similar manner and took the bill to the people. There was a lot of time between the amendment phase and the vote. Not a few hours.

The ACA was a lot longer document (2700 pages), but didn't give a lot of information about what ObamaCare really was. It delegated the determination of much of the actual rules and regulations to the administration, particularly the Secy. of HHS. Reading the bill was both impossible and pointless. And many of the details that actually were in the bills were unilaterally changed later by the administration.

GOP handling of this tax bill is equally objectionable, and like the ACA, pure politics. Nobody could read and understand the ACA bill before it was passed, and the same is true of this tax bill. Not that it matters a lot anyway. The Senate bill still has to go through reconciliation with the House bill, and no one knows what it will look like after that. But I'll bet big bucks that no one gets time to read and understand the final bill before it comes up for a vote.

[davew]

[QUOTE=reckless;2247183]
If all that was on the up and up, why didn't Obama just write Iran a check and then give a speech explaining this. Or he could have simply unfroze the money on the basis 'because it's Iran's money', as you say. All of Obama's supporters ... the America haters, Wall Street and the banks, plus the compromised and stupid GOP senators, all would have been on board, no?
QUOTE]

to by-pass the aiding terrorist banking regulations - terrorist country and terrorist president involved

[kingfin66]

Not the way I remember it. It was only a couple of days that anyone had time to read it - in facet, NO one read it all. FOX had a speed reader on set trying to gist it and he could not come close. It was never taken to the people. IT was pushed through without a single vote from anyone representing half of the country.

It has been a while since the ACA was passed. Here is the timeline:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-timeline/index.html

As far as the voting goes, it is true that no republicans voted for it in either the house or senate. By the way, my post was not argument for Obamacare. Rather it was pointing out the timelines of the ACA versus the tax bill. Really, both acts are examples of Congress messing things up to "help" the people. At least in my opinion. It may or may not have been better to take some time rather than just ram it home for the sake of appearing to get something done. After all, they have a government shutdown to avoid.

[thaskalos]

Just to set the record straight, we did not owe the current Iranian government one damn cent. The money you are referring to was under a different regime. Once they overthrew the Shah, our obligations to them was over.

And this man was pretending to be a "Christian", in that other thread. :rolleyes:

[Ruffian1]

I think that my family should come out okay on the new tax bill. We definitely do need to itemize so it will be interesting to see where that puts us. Dropping to the 24% tax rate will definitely be helpful as will keeping the property tax deduction. My property taxes are about $7,000 per year. I also still deduct a pretty good amount of mortgage insurance. As an individual, I am happy. As a fiscal conservative, I don't see this as being good overall for the country. People are citing info about the growth of the economy and its impact without posting sources.

The Joint Committee on Taxation tells a different story.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454261/jcts-dynamic-score-misses-mark-economic-growth-tax-plan


In my state , and most that I am aware of, mortgage insurance is only for people that have put less than 20% down OR put less than 20% and have not yet made enough principle payments to get the principle down to 20% of the cost of the house at the time of the loan.

Once you DO get to that amount, NO BANK will tell you that you do NOT have to pay it anymore, YOU MUST CONTACT THEM and TELL THEM to stop billing you for probably 80.00 -200.00 per month, depending on the cost of the house.

By law, they are required to stop adding mortgage insurance (or PMI) on to your monthly payments when you hit 20% BUT ONLY if you request them to do so.

If you only put 5% down when you bought your house, in about year 10 if you did not pay any principle down since you started owning your house you will be at the 20% mark.

PLEASE check where you stand and be fully aware of this. Otherwise, your banking institution will be more than happy to collect 80.00-200.00 dollars per month from you for the next 20 years past when it should have stopped.

That will come to anywhere from 9,200.00 to 48,000.00 dollars or more, estimated. ( I do not know what you paid for your house)

I will go out on a limb and assume you could do something more with that money than give it away to that fine upstanding banking institution.

If this helps just one person, writing this was well worth doing.

I sure hope that this helps you or anyone that does not know this. :ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

just ram it home for the sake of appearing to get something done

Congress is in session for two more weeks, then their year is over. They have no major accomplishments this year. Trump has gotten none of his legislative program passed. This is a last-gasp effort to look productive and to have something to brag about as they go into campaign mode for the 2018 elections.

[elysiantraveller]

...

Conventional only.

Once LTV hits 80% mortgage insurance can be removed via request. By law it falls off at 78%.

FHA (3.5% down) and USDA RD (0.0% down) it stays on the life of the loan or until you refinance into conventional. MI rates are fixed though at .85% and .35% respectively. Also have up front mortgage insurance premium which is wrapped into the loan at 1.75% and 1% again respectively.

[Ruffian1]

Conventional only.

Once LTV hits 80% mortgage insurance can be removed via request. By law it falls off at 78%.

FHA (3.5% down) and USDA RD (0.0% down) it stays on the life of the loan or until you refinance into conventional. MI rates are fixed though at .85% and .35% respectively. Also have up front mortgage insurance premium which is wrapped into the loan at 1.75% and 1% again respectively.

Which the vast majority of borrowers do not know along with all the other tricks of the trade.

That is why I posted what I did.

You OK with that?

[Ruffian1]

Conventional only.

Once LTV hits 80% mortgage insurance can be removed via request. By law it falls off at 78%.

FHA (3.5% down) and USDA RD (0.0% down) it stays on the life of the loan or until you refinance into conventional. MI rat. es are fixed though at .85% and .35% respectivelyAlso have up front mortgage insurance premium which is wrapped into the loan at 1.75% and 1% again respectively.



Yet another way for banks to screw you.

Sounds like you are defending banks. Lol.

[AndyC]

Conventional only.

Once LTV hits 80% mortgage insurance can be removed via request. By law it falls off at 78%.

FHA (3.5% down) and USDA RD (0.0% down) it stays on the life of the loan or until you refinance into conventional. MI rat. es are fixed though at .85% and .35% respectivelyAlso have up front mortgage insurance premium which is wrapped into the loan at 1.75% and 1% again respectively.



Yet another way for banks to screw you.

Sounds like you are defending banks. Lol.

The lenders aren't keeping your mortgage insurance so I am not sure why the banks are the evil party.

[elysiantraveller]

[quote=Ruffian1;2247374]

The lenders aren't keeping your mortgage insurance so I am not sure why the banks are the evil party.

Correct.

Furthermore I'm not sure why I'm getting attacked. Just giving more in depth explanation... next I'll need my NMLS # or party registration to comment on here. ;)

But I'm one of those evil bankers who explains all this stuff daily. ;)

[elysiantraveller]

.

HUD and the USDA collect those. As far as PMI those are insurance companies, UGIC, NMI, GMI are the big players.

[chadk66]

OK so I saw the new rates/deductions that both houses of congress have offered up. Wow. between the wife and I it'll save us about 5K in taxes. That's a hell of a nice xmas present. I don't know how much more of this winning I an take. Also. after looking at those one will find it is not lowering the rates for the rich. Only crumbs they get are the changes to the standard deduction. To us that is huge to them it'll be peanuts. So all that ranting by the left turned out to be a nothing burger once again:lol:

[Clocker]

So all that ranting by the left turned out to be a nothing burger once again:lol:

Some people don't like the idea that tax cuts only have a direct benefit for the 53% of people that pay taxes.

[AndyC]

Some people don't like the idea that tax cuts only have a direct benefit for the 53% of people that pay taxes.

What I don't like is that it narrows the tax base once again. When the majority of voters are not paying any income taxes the welfare state will be unstoppable.

[Clocker]

What I don't like is that it narrows the tax base once again. When the majority of voters are not paying any income taxes the welfare state will be unstoppable.

I agree. The problem is that taxes should be cut, but so should spending. But once a welfare program is in place, Congress views it as in entitlement, and even questioning it is political blasphemy.

The Democrat philosophy is that we don't have a spending problem, we have a "pay-for" problem. Too many Republicans claim to believe otherwise but lack the courage to do anything about it.

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/937319751147069440

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/johnjharwood/status/937325387356540928

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/adamdavidson/status/937323090773716993

[Clocker]

Paul Krugman

This is the guy who thought that Obama walked on water when he and the Dems doubled the debt in 8 years, but GOP deficits are toxic. :D

Sorry, any economic analysis that has his name at the top is a non-starter.

[Clocker]

Try this: Republicans passed a tax bill which, according to their own analysis and all others, transfers trillions from the middle class and poor to rich people and corporations, while increasing our debt and limiting the government's ability to fund its programs.

Pot, meet kettle:

https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2017/12/mrz112117-color-1-8-mb_2_orig.jpg?resize=580%2C421

[elysiantraveller]

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/937319751147069440

Clocker is right on this. The only thing Krugman has said correct in the past 8 years is we should sell long term paper instead of short. That's it... And anyone who understands economics agrees.

[AndyC]

.....This, simply, IS a transfer from poor to rich.

What exactly are the poor transferring? It's hard to cut taxes from negative to more negative.

[kingfin66]

In my state , and most that I am aware of, mortgage insurance is only for people that have put less than 20% down OR put less than 20% and have not yet made enough principle payments to get the principle down to 20% of the cost of the house at the time of the loan.

Once you DO get to that amount, NO BANK will tell you that you do NOT have to pay it anymore, YOU MUST CONTACT THEM and TELL THEM to stop billing you for probably 80.00 -200.00 per month, depending on the cost of the house.

By law, they are required to stop adding mortgage insurance (or PMI) on to your monthly payments when you hit 20% BUT ONLY if you request them to do so.

If you only put 5% down when you bought your house, in about year 10 if you did not pay any principle down since you started owning your house you will be at the 20% mark.

PLEASE check where you stand and be fully aware of this. Otherwise, your banking institution will be more than happy to collect 80.00-200.00 dollars per month from you for the next 20 years past when it should have stopped.

That will come to anywhere from 9,200.00 to 48,000.00 dollars or more, estimated. ( I do not know what you paid for your house)

I will go out on a limb and assume you could do something more with that money than give it away to that fine upstanding banking institution.

If this helps just one person, writing this was well worth doing.

I sure hope that this helps you or anyone that does not know this. :ThmbUp:

Dammit, I wrote insurance instead of INTEREST. Interest is what I meant. I do not have have PMI as I cam into my loan at much more than 20% LTV and have gained equity since then. I started on the last page when I was catching up on this thread, and wondered why the hell there was bickering about PMI. It sucks to find out that it is my fault :blush::blush::blush: Shit. Sorry about that everybody.

[kingfin66]

Congress is in session for two more weeks, then their year is over. They have no major accomplishments this year. Trump has gotten none of his legislative program passed. This is a last-gasp effort to look productive and to have something to brag about as they go into campaign mode for the 2018 elections.

Exactly, and it's too bad Clocker. It really is. Our Congress is pathetic and has been for many years. Thats liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, and everything to the far right, left and in between.

[FantasticDan]

This is the guy who thought that Obama walked on water when he and the Dems doubled the debt in 8 years, but GOP deficits are toxic. :D Sorry, any economic analysis that has his name at the top is a non-starter.
It's not his analysis. Sorry if it was too subtle for you.

[Clocker]

It's not his analysis. Sorry if it was too subtle for you.

Are these not Krugman's words? Is this not analysis that he is sponsoring as correct?

Matt O'Brien dives through the muck of the Tax Foundation "model" so we don't have to. Bottom line: it's nonsense even on their own assumptions; and somehow all the conceptual errors favor tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy

[chadk66]

It's not his analysis. Sorry if it was too subtle for you.I took my last years tax return and re-did them using the proposed numbers from the new tax changes. I'll save 5K. Those are cold hard numbers and I'm as middle class as it gets. That's a hell of a nice tax cut. So honestly, it doesn't matter what some democrat pimp wants to throw out there. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to insert those new
numbers in last years tax return.

[FantasticDan]

Are these not Krugman's words? Is this not analysis that he is sponsoring as correct?Yes, but it's not HIS analysis, is it? Which is what you were suggesting..

I know, I know.. if he either writes it or simply recommends it, it must be wrong :lol: :ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

Yes, but it's not HIS analysis, is it? Which is what you were suggesting..

I know, I know.. if he either writes it or simply recommends it, it must be wrong :lol: :ThmbUp:

Okay, to nitpick, I was referring to Krugman's opinion, i.e., analysis, of O'Brien's analysis. But writing or recommending, it is still better than a 1:9 favorite that he is wrong, based on his past performances.

That is one reason I didn't read O'Brien's analysis. Another is that it is behind the WaPo pay wall, and I am certainly not going to pay to read the WaPo. But most importantly, the final bill has yet to be written and passed, so any "analysis" is speculation at this point.

[FantasticDan]

That is one reason I didn't read O'Brien's analysis. Another is that it is behind the WaPo pay wall, and I am certainly not going to pay to read the WaPo.I read the entire article from the Twitter link I posted. There was no pay wall, and I'm not a WaPo subscriber.

[Clocker]

I read the entire article from the Twitter link I posted. There was no pay wall, and I'm not a WaPo subscriber.

I clicked on your link and got the pay wall. WaPo lets you read a few articles within some time period and then blocks you. I do read some of their stuff, so I must be over my limit right now.

But as I said, I wasn't planning to actually read the whole thing, because the final bill hasn't been written yet.

And I don't have to actually read it to know that Krugman is wrong. :cool:

[JustRalph]

I already said where we cut. Our military does not need anything more than the standard spending increases to say otherwise is silly. We face no conventional threats we can't easily handle. We do need infrastructure spending I agree but to say this administration is ANYTHING remotely close to revenue neutral is absurd.

That was my point. We don't really disagree but this plan is garbage if you fall into my demographic.

40% of air assets are grounded due to a lack of parts.......

Our military is running on crutches

[elysiantraveller]

40% of air assets are grounded due to a lack of parts.......

Our military is running on crutches

Because they are being phased out and delays in the F35 program?

[JustRalph]

Because they are being phased out and delays in the F35 program?

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/02/10/spare-parts-shortage-grounds-most-marine-corps-aircraft.html

One example above. Budget constraints is cited in others.

Google around. It’s a disgrace

[elysiantraveller]

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/02/10/spare-parts-shortage-grounds-most-marine-corps-aircraft.html

One example above. Budget constraints is cited in others.

Google around. It’s a disgrace

Yeah.

Planned phase out aircraft.

[elysiantraveller]

The strike aircraft at least.

[Clocker]

Exactly, and it's too bad Clocker. It really is. Our Congress is pathetic and has been for many years. Thats liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, and everything to the far right, left and in between.

The "leadership" of Congress has been deteriorating over the course of the Bush and Obama administrations. It is becoming more and more us vs. them, with no adults in charge capable of real debate and compromise. Pelosi and Reid were the worst ever as far as stone walling, but the current GOP "leadership", while more civil on the surface, appear equally inept at discussion and compromise.

For the most part, that is not necessarily bad news. While the country as a whole would benefit from tax relief and health care reform, anything else either party wants appears to be toxic. If they could just work out those two issues and go home, we would all be a lot better off.

We need to go back to the founding, when Congress met in the late fall or early winter, after the crops were in, got their work done, and went back home for spring planting.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by AdamDavidson
.....This, simply, IS a transfer from poor to rich.
What exactly are the poor transferring? It's hard to cut taxes from negative to more negative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HqyEHqEYho

[Tom]

Try this: Republicans passed a tax bill which, according to their own analysis and all others, transfers trillions from the middle class and poor to rich people and

A ha!
So you admit that those danged poor people who have not been paying taxes, in fact, have squirrel away trillion of dollars.

Then this bill is JUSTICE, Dan! It returns those trillions to their rightful owners, the RICH, who have been shouldering the tax burden wrongfully!!

[Tom]

Exactly, and it's too bad Clocker. It really is. Our Congress is pathetic and has been for many years. Thats liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, and everything to the far right, left and in between.

Right on!
They keep us divided along political lines while THEY, together, rape, pillage, and plunder the country.

We should, as one people, light torches, gather up pitch forks, and march on Washington and drain the damn swamp ourselves.

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/937701603863273476

[JustRalph]

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/937701603863273476

This is why you lose........give me a break.

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/RepJoeKennedy/status/938173784389050371

[elysiantraveller]

https://twitter.com/RepJoeKennedy/status/938173784389050371

Great!!!!!

:ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:thumb:Thmb Up:up:ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::Thmb Up::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp: thumb

[zico20]

Reminder to all liberals: Tax rates are merely legal minimums. You are free to send as much as you would like.

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/943094818410057729

https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/943113706447261696

[chadk66]

http://taxplancalculator.com/ How do you fare?

[boxcar]

https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/943094818410057729

https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/943113706447261696

Your outlook on the proposed tax cuts is all wrong. Not only is it wrong but it's totally inconsistent with leftist ideology relative to entitlements. Allow me to set you on the right track. The proposed tax cuts would be an entitlement since all Americans are entitled to keep as much of their hard-earned money as possible. See how easy that was... :coffee:

[davew]

What exactly are the poor transferring? It's hard to cut taxes from negative to more negative.

As long as you can help the progressive cause, you are ENTITLED to food, housing, transportation, medical, retirement...

[Tom]

Your outlook on the proposed tax cuts is all wrong. Not only is it wrong but it's totally inconsistent with leftist ideology relative to entitlements. Allow me to set you on the right track. The proposed tax cuts would be an entitlement since all Americans are entitled to keep as much of their hard-earned money as possible. See how easy that was... :coffee:

How true!
Rep points are in your stocking!

[boxcar]

How true!
Rep points are in your stocking!

Why, thank you, Tom. Appreciate that. One day I'm going to have to find out how to redeem those points. :coffee:

[FantasticDan]

Screw-job City. :ThmbDown:

PA alt-righties: Thank you sir, may I have another! :jump:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/opinion/tax-bill-trump-republicans.html

[JustRalph]

http://taxplancalculator.com/ How do you fare?

Saves me $3900 this year.........

8k next year........maybe much more

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/943184171786268672

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/943200533472534530

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/943201111091171334

[Tom]

Screw-job City. :ThmbDown:

PA alt-righties: Thank you sir, may I have another! :jump:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/opinion/tax-bill-trump-republicans.htmlo

Looks like I make out really good - significant savings.
You can post all the fake new your want, but the numbers are there.

Did hcap pass the torch to you....of posting the ridiculous?
VOX, NY Times....:pound::pound::pound:

[boxcar]

o

Looks like I make out really good - significant savings.
You can post all the fake new your want, but the numbers are there.

Did hcap pass the torch to you....of posting the ridiculous?
VOX, NY Times....:pound::pound::pound:

I did fine, also. And I ain't rich -- not by any stretch. :coffee: But it is fun watching leftists get their panties in a knot over our entitlements, isn't it?

How many of you unhappy, whining leftists out there are going to refuse your entitlements and give your IRS refunds back to the federal government? Can I see a show of hands?

[elysiantraveller]

One thing I find interesting from a lot on here is the concern with the national debt when Obama is president but when this tax plan comes out everyone is super happy at their savings.

Personally this plan will benefit me more than most but it's also going to accelerate our debt crises and this Administration hasn't even spent any real money on its agenda yet... :faint:

[NJ Stinks]

Saves me $3900 this year.........

8k next year........maybe much more

Whatever it saves you and me is going to hurt people who need the money more than you and I need the tax cut.

That's the truth and none of the BS thrown out by righties everywhere changes that unequivocal fact.

[boxcar]

One thing I find interesting from a lot on here is the concern with the national debt when Obama is president but when this tax plan comes out everyone is super happy at their savings.

Personally this plan will benefit me more than most but it's also going to accelerate our debt crises and this Administration hasn't even spent any real money on its agenda yet... :faint:

What I find even more interesting is that when the Feds were spending this nation into oblivion, no leftists complained about the huge debt we'd incur as a result thereof. But again...since you're such a conscientious and concerned taxpayer, I take it that you'll be sending your refund back to the Feds to help mitigate our debt burden?

[elysiantraveller]

What I find even more interesting is that when the Feds were spending this nation into oblivion, no leftists complained about the huge debt we'd incur as a result thereof. But again...since you're such a conscientious and concerned taxpayer, I take it that you'll be sending your refund back to the Feds to help mitigate our debt burden?

I'm not a leftist but I complained.

I had a problem with it then and I have a problem with it now.

At least I'm consistent. This post (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1390477&postcount=74)from a few years ago remains consistent with my views today... only that time the victim was the Obama administration.

It's actually quite funny reading through all those threads when all you Trumpers agreed with me. Now when I'm still calling a spade a spade... I'm a leftist.

[boxcar]

I'm not a leftist but I complained.

I had a problem with it then and I have a problem with it now.

At least I'm consistent. This post (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1390477&postcount=74)from a few years ago remains consistent with my views today... only that time the victim was the Obama administration.

It's actually quite funny reading through all those threads when all you Trumpers agreed with me. Now when I'm still calling a spade a spade... I'm a leftist.

Well...this is one "Trumper" who apparently didn't agree with you back then and still don't. After all, the deficit problem is caused by gross overspending, not gross undertaxation.

So tell us...are you sending your refund back? You know I would... BUT...someone told me once that "charity begins at home."

[boxcar]

Whatever it saves you and me is going to hurt people who need the money more than you and I need the tax cut.

That's the truth and none of the BS thrown out by righties everywhere changes that unequivocal fact.

How is it going to hurt those people? If they make enough money to file tax returns, they will benefit by the cut. But if they don't make enough to file tax returns, then they get nothing back because they put so little or nothing in. Their status will remain unchanged.

[elysiantraveller]

Well...this is one "Trumper" who apparently didn't agree with you back then and still don't. After all, the deficit problem is caused by gross overspending, not gross undertaxation.

So tell us...are you sending your refund back? You know I would... BUT...someone told me once that "charity begins at home."

Cutting revenue before you enact ANY of your agenda that's going to INCREASE spending is foolhardy if you actually care about the debt.

[elysiantraveller]

And while we're on the subject. Even though I utterly despise the ACA and the mandate passage of this bill and the removal of the mandate will end up costing us taxpayers far more in insurance bailouts.

Unless of course we can pass a ACA stabilization bill or suitable replacement. Based on the government's efforts this year I'm less than optimistic.

[lamboguy]

this has to be a great tax plan. no other country in the world likes it. it doesn't make any difference what the amount of revenue, we can't pay the $20 trillion we owe now, so they might as well make it $30 or $40 trillion. they are just number's at this point that will never get paid off!

[NJ Stinks]

How is it going to hurt those people? If they make enough money to file tax returns, they will benefit by the cut. But if they don't make enough to file tax returns, then they get nothing back because they put so little or nothing in. Their status will remain unchanged.

See if you can think this through. If there is less tax revenue, there will be less money available for people on food stamps and other entitlement programs.

Surely a religious soul like yourself would never turn your back on people in need.

[elysiantraveller]

this has to be a great tax plan. no other country in the world likes it. it doesn't make any difference what the amount of revenue, we can't pay the $20 trillion we owe now, so they might as well make it $30 or $40 trillion. they are just number's at this point that will never get paid off!

I keep hearing this but haven't seen any evidence. There are a couple of sections regarding foreign profits that depending on how they are applied could be in violation of WTO policy.

That's about it. At least what I can find on Google. It brings our corporate tax rate in line with the rest of the world.

[lefty359]

Bottom Line Is Dems or DIMS as I call them never saw a tax cut they liked and they never saw a spending cut they liked either. Now they are pretending to be deficit hawks. My, MY...:D

[elysiantraveller]

Bottom Line Is Dems or DIMS as I call them never saw a tax cut they liked and they never saw a spending cut they liked either. Now they are pretending to be deficit hawks. My, MY...:D

Republicans aren't either though...

It's a giant case of pot meet kettle.

[chadk66]

Bottom Line Is Dems or DIMS as I call them never saw a tax cut they liked and they never saw a spending cut they liked either. Now they are pretending to be deficit hawks. My, MY...:Dthat's the part that amazes me. well I guess it really doesn't surprise me because it's all politics. They never said a word when the messiah added trillions to our nations debt but they squeal like little girls when someone tells them this tax cut could add to the debt :pound:. They are against it for one reason and one reason only. It will destroy their election possibilities and will guarantee Trump a second term and they know it. Nothing more nothing less.

[zico20]

See if you can think this through. If there is less tax revenue, there will be less money available for people on food stamps and other entitlement programs.

Surely a religious soul like yourself would never turn your back on people in need.

Wrong! The Republicans can't cut spending to save their life. Money will always be there for entitlement programs, the problem is Democrats believe if they don't spend as much as they deem satisfactory then it is a spending cut, which is plain ludicrous.

As Lambo said, what is the difference between 20 trillion and pick a number, we are in debt forever.

[boxcar]

That's about it. At least what I can find on Google. It brings our corporate tax rate in line with the rest of the world.

And this is a bad thing?

[fast4522]

Bottom Line Is Dems or DIMS as I call them never saw a tax cut they liked and they never saw a spending cut they liked either. Now they are pretending to be deficit hawks. My, MY...:D

It is all about regaining power, when they get it they will squander it.
Everyone wants something, few can remain in office by cutting or even slowing growth in any program. Never fear across the board cuts will be followed after the country gets back to work. Oh for those who really don't want to work, you will become a larger part of the cuts. Those who want Europe might get good deals on airfare with more people working, commercial airlines will make a big comeback with everyone having more discretionary pocket money. The failure to prove collusion on anyone but the democrats has nicely put minority leaders in a box to face the shit squad over and over.