• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sol Rosenberg

Tax “Reform”

Recommended Posts

How much will it cost, Who is benefitting, and who is paying for it?

looks to me like future generations are being robbed again, so the Best Americans can get a good bit closer to having everything. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

Where are all the loud and proud riders of the Fiscal Responsibility Express these days?  

They got off at an earlier stop

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's a few trillion amongst friends?

logo.pngysis of Donald Trump's Revised 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-revised-tax-plan

ABSTRACT

This paper analyzes presidential candidate Donald Trump’s revised tax proposal, which would significantly reduce marginal tax rates, increase standard deduction amounts, repeal personal exemptions, cap itemized deductions, and allow businesses to elect to expense new investment and not deduct interest expense. His proposal would cut taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households. Federal revenues would fall by $6.2 trillion over the first decade before accounting for added interest costs. Including interest costs, the federal debt would rise by $7.2 trillion over the first decade and by $20.9 trillion by 2036.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Person being interviewed said 80% of the breaks goes to the top 1 percent, IIRC.  A google search tells me that the top one-percent have a net worth of over 8 million bucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it weren't for the timing of the release of the Paradise Papers this would be a sure thing. As it is, it'll be a squeaker. 

A couple more indictments after Thanksgiving and this bill will be in the garbage with the turkey carcass. I hope financial thread pulling becomes an official FBI hobby. We might get somewhere with leveling the playing field in the next decade if we expose how ruthlessly this administration is trying to fleece the 99.5%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

If it weren't for the timing of the release of the Paradise Papers this would be a sure thing. As it is, it'll be a squeaker. 

A couple more indictments after Thanksgiving and this bill will be in the garbage with the turkey carcass. I hope financial thread pulling becomes an official FBI hobby. We might get somewhere with leveling the playing field in the next decade if we expose how ruthlessly this administration is trying to fleece the 99.5%

From your keyboard to God's ear, we can only hope!!!!  Not just fleecing we, the Proletariat, but undoing decades of environmental and women's health legislation.

MAGA, like in the 1950's??  Unfortunately, the general population is so dumbed down, and oblivious to these things, that it makes me very sad, and very ashamed, that we, as a collective, are so pitifully ignorant, and uncaring, about  what is really going on?  I see foreboding shades of the fall of the Ottoman, or Roman, or British Empires quickly approaching, on the horizon, as China asserts it's rightful position as the next overarching Super Power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any person wants to come on here and defend this absolute fucking scam, bring it on.  Just don't use, "Job creators", Trickle-down", "Prime the pump", "Laffer curve" or any other economic stupidities of that order.  

Just explain why its so dreadfully important for really rich people to have more money.  

This really is the potential end of the American Century.  American Exceptionalism = American stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Eviscerating US higher education murders the status quo.

This is eating the seed corn, not the status quo.

Where will the next generation of baristas come from?  Ohhhh, the humanities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

If any person wants to come on here and defend this absolute fucking scam, bring it on.  Just don't use, "Job creators", Trickle-down", "Prime the pump", "Laffer curve" or any other economic stupidities of that order.  

Just explain why its so dreadfully important for really rich people to have more money.  

This really is the potential end of the American Century.  American Exceptionalism = American stupidity.

Face it, the US is in a class war and has been since about 1980.  Only one side is fighting it, but it is a war nonetheless.  The other side is too busy noticing people with different skin color, religion, sexual preference, etc. to notice who is really screwing them.  Once they do notice, the war they fight will far less passive aggressive than the one which has been waged against them for these many years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've seen the effect of tax cuts before and it is insulting to see the GOP trying to invent excuses so that we might fall for this scam yet again. The GOP just got done bragging about employment numbers and we are close to full employability according to some experts. Why then, would we need tax cuts to spur the economy? Why would any thinking human want to explode the deficit? This is the worst bill put forth in many moons and I hope it gets kicked to the gutter where it belongs.

DO9d1DAX4AAKaNN.jpg:large

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

If any person wants to come on here and defend this absolute fucking scam, bring it on.  Just don't use, "Job creators", Trickle-down", "Prime the pump", "Laffer curve" or any other economic stupidities of that order.  

Just explain why its so dreadfully important for really rich people to have more money.  

This really is the potential end of the American Century.  American Exceptionalism = American stupidity.

The job creators know that unlike Jabsco, a financial pump must be primed.   Thus you pump water backward in the hope some of it will trickle back to its original owners after Laffler’s delicately curved champagne glass has been washed by the Phillipino steward.   

Do I get an A?   It’s out of the book but I find that priming thing confusing.   I have to suck real hard on the hose and start a siphon if I want a drink. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billy backstay said:

Person being interviewed said 80% of the breaks goes to the top 1 percent, IIRC. 

Of course - they have all the money.

You just have to wait for it to trickle down to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Clinton/Gingrich understood you run a surplus under a roaring economy. And we know it’s a roaring economy because Trump said so.

so winding UP the deficit when you should be saving for the rainy days? Irresponsible, profligate, immoral. From the party of pussy-grabbing Family values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a personal note, I’m working hard to resign myself to the reality that, as far as taxes are concerned, we’re about to be be royally fucked.  I’d like to say resignation is liberating (in the Zen sense, maybe?), but it isn’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Even Clinton/Gingrich understood you run a surplus under a roaring economy. And we know it’s a roaring economy because Trump said so.

so winding UP the deficit when you should be saving for the rainy days? Irresponsible, profligate, immoral. From the party of pussy-grabbing Family values.

Clinton/Gingrich didn't have morons as their core supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sean said:

What's a few trillion amongst friends?

logo.pngysis of Donald Trump's Revised 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-revised-tax-plan

ABSTRACT

This paper analyzes presidential candidate Donald Trump’s revised tax proposal, which would significantly reduce marginal tax rates, increase standard deduction amounts, repeal personal exemptions, cap itemized deductions, and allow businesses to elect to expense new investment and not deduct interest expense. His proposal would cut taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households. Federal revenues would fall by $6.2 trillion over the first decade before accounting for added interest costs. Including interest costs, the federal debt would rise by $7.2 trillion over the first decade and by $20.9 trillion by 2036.

I can’t wait to see what our most vocal riders of the Fiscal Responsibility Express think of this contribution to the debt. Where are the folks who were making so much noise when the democRAT was in the White House, @Dog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinion | Op-Ed Columnist

Lies, Incoherence and Rage on Tax Cuts

krugman-circular-thumbLarge-v7.jpg

Paul Krugman NOV. 20, 2017

One thing you can count on in 21st-century U.S. politics is that Republicans will lie about taxes. They did it under George W. Bush, they did it under Barack Obama and they’re still doing it under Donald Trump.

Yet this time is different. It’s not just that the lies have gotten even more brazen. There’s now a combination of incoherence and rage that we, or at least I, haven’t seen before. These days, they can’t even seem to get their fake story straight — and they literally start yelling obscenities when someone tries to point out the facts.

G.O.P. lies about taxes generally involve two issues: who is hurt or helped by tax changes, and what these changes will do to the budget.

Thus, when George W. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, he and his party repeatedly insisted that the tax cuts were primarily for the middle class. In fact, while there were some middle-class tax breaks in the package, such as an increase in the child tax credit, these were dwarfed by cuts in tax rates on high incomes, reduced taxes on dividends and repeal of the estate tax. Over all, the richest 1 percent saw a much larger increase in after-tax income than middle-class families did.

At the same time, the Bush administration used a series of gimmicks to hide the true fiscal cost of the plan, such as delaying the implementation of some tax cuts while pretending that others would expire when the actual intention was to make them permanent. 

When Obama took office, these tricks were simply flipped on their head. Republicans insisted, falsely, that Obama had imposed a “massive tax increase” on the middle class; in fact, for the most part he actually cut middle-class taxes. Meanwhile, they insisted that the surge in the budget deficit caused by the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis was permanent, and ridiculed the Obama administration’s claims that deficits would fall sharply once crisis spending ended and tax receipts recovered; in fact, that’s exactly what happened.

So what’s different this time? As in the Bush years, Republicans are claiming to be offering a middle-class tax cut. But where Bush truly was cutting taxes on the middle class, just much less than he was on the wealthy, current Republican plans would raise those taxes on many lower- and middle-income families, even as they go down for the wealthy. (Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, claims that only “million-dollar earners” would see tax increases. This is the opposite of the truth.)

Oh, and a memo to journalists: If you play it safe by reporting this as “Democrats say” that middle-class taxes will go up, you’re misleading your readers: Those estimates come from the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’s own nonpartisan scorekeeper.

How can Republicans like Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, pretend to be helping the middle class? It depends crucially on a new kind of budget gimmick: Both the House and Senate tax-cut bills do contain some middle-class tax breaks — but only for the first few years. Then they expire.

Take one of Ryan’s favorite examples, a family with two children and earning $59,000 a year. That family would indeed get a tax break next year. But the break would rapidly dwindle and turn into a tax increase by 2024

The Republican response is to claim that these tax breaks wouldn’t really expire, that Congress would eventually renew them. That’s quite doubtful — and even if true, it means that the tax plans would add much more to the national debt than the G.O.P. admits. Which brings me to the whole budget deficit issue.

Not long ago, leading Republicans claimed to be deeply concerned about budget deficits. Only fools and centrists took the Republicans seriously. Still, the abrupt shift to nonchalance about adding trillions to the debt in order to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy is causing a bit of whiplash even among cynics. How do they justify the shift?

Well, they don’t seem to have settled on a story. Mnuchin keeps asserting that tax cuts will pay for themselves, going so far as to claim (falsely) that Treasury has released a study showing this. Mick Mulvaney, the budget director, cheerfully acknowledges that they’re using gimmicks to pass a bill that permanently cuts taxes on corporations, and not to worry. Whatever works, it seems.

So we’re really looking at an unprecedented level of dishonesty here. But what happens when you try to explain what’s going on? When Senator Sherrod Brown tried to point out, correctly, that the Senate G.O.P.’s tax bill heavily favors the rich, Senator Orrin Hatch exploded, calling it “bull crap” and asserting that he grew up poor (which is relevant why, exactly?).

Sorry, but this isn’t the righteous anger of a man falsely accused of wrongdoing. It’s the rage con men always exhibit when caught out in their con.

But what’s the con about? The very incoherence of the arguments Republicans are making for their plans shows that it’s not about helping the economy, let alone ordinary families. It really is about making the rich richer, at everyone else’s expense. If this be bull crap, make the most of it.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/opinion/lies-incoherence-and-rage-on-tax-cuts.html?src=trending&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Trending&pgtype=article

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C.E.O. Deficit Fears Dissolve With the Prospect of Corporate Tax Cuts

dbpix-writer-andrew-sorkin-thumbLarge.jpg

Andrew Ross Sorkin

DEALBOOK NOV. 20, 2017

In mid-October 2012, Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, hosted a luncheon on the 49th floor of the firm’s Park Avenue headquarters. The guest list was a boldface roll call of corporate executives and policymakers: Lloyd C. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, David M. Cote of Honeywell, the Democratic senator Mark Warner of Virginia and the Republican senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, among others.

The topic over lunch was “Fix the Debt,” a nascent effort by like-minded executives — all of whom had signed on to the campaign — to urge lawmakers to address the nation’s growing debt. Erskine Bowles, the former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton who was an inspiration for the group along with Alan Simpson, the former Republican senator from Wyoming, had just called the nation’s debt “a cancer that will destroy this country from within.”

Mr. Dimon, along with dozens of other executives, took up the challenge. “The inability to face our fiscal reality is a concern,” he wrote in his annual letter to investors that year, lamenting the failure to adopt the Simpson-Bowles plan to reduce the debt by $4 trillion, in part by increasing taxes, closing loopholes and reducing entitlements. “I believe that if we had adopted some form of the Simpson-Bowles plan to fix the debt, it would have been extremely beneficial to the economy.”

Fast forward to this month: With a few exceptions, the community of chief executives that once championed reducing the debt as the nation’s top priority is taking up a position on the other side of the issue. They are advocating an overhaul package that will reduce corporate taxes, even though both the House and Senate plans will increase the national debt by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the next decade.

You’ve heard nary a peep from the business community about that. The silence is deafening.

“Passing tax reform is the single most important thing that Congress can do to make American companies more competitive, boost the economy, create jobs and spur wage growth,” Mr. Dimon, who is also the chairman of the Business Roundtable, which represents some of the largest companies in the nation, said in a statement this month. “The House and Senate continue to move forward to deliver tax relief for hard-working American families, and business leaders will continue to advocate for comprehensive pro-growth reform.”

He is hardly alone in his support for the tax plan. Hundreds of chief executives have come out in favor of the proposal, which, among other things, will reduce the corporate tax rate to 20 percent, from 35 percent, as well as allow multinational businesses to repatriate income from abroad at a one-time rate of only 12 percent.

Steven Rattner, the former auto czar under President Obama who now oversees Michael R. Bloomberg’s wealth and was on the steering committee of the Fix the Debt campaign, said he was no fan of the current tax plan. But he said he understood why some executives who once placed so much emphasis on the mounting debt problem would now focus on tax cuts — and how many of them feel that the two positions did not contradict each other.

“It’s not completely irrational to say the tax code is a disaster,” Mr. Rattner said. “What’s going on here is that the importance of reforming the tax code trumps, excuse the pun, fixing the debt.”

Mr. Rattner said that for many chief executives, “the choice is between this and no tax bill.” In other words, there is not another option on the table, nor is there one on the horizon. Still, Mr. Rattner said he could not support the current tax overhaul plan.

In fairness, the position of Mr. Dimon and others may not be completely at odds with their previous views. Despite the stated goal of the Fix the Debt campaign five years ago, insiders say it was as much a rallying cry for Washington to come together on financial policy as it was about immediately addressing the debt. And much of the campaign was predicated on meaningful corporate tax reform and spending.

Chief executives like Mr. Dimon and Mr. Cote offered to pay higher individual tax rates — which the Simpson-Bowles plan called for — but significantly cutting corporate taxes was always a central tenet of the “fix the debt” effort. And with the current tax plan, Mr. Dimon and others have not taken a public position on anything but the corporate tax reduction element; they have not spoken out about the individual rate or other elements.

Still, members of the Fix the Debt campaign were critiqued at the time as a group “acting in their economic self-interest by laying groundwork for lower corporate taxes and deep cuts to entitlement programs that primarily benefit the working and middle classes,” as New York magazine asserted then.

Only a handful of public company executives have raised questions about the viability of the tax plan and its impact on the long-term fiscal health of the economy. One of them is Howard Schultz, executive chairman of Starbucks, who told me two weeks ago: “If you talk about tax reform, which is in the news every minute of every day, this is not tax reform. This is fool’s gold.”

When I asked him about Mr. Dimon’s support for the tax plan, he said: “He’s a lot smarter than me, but I don’t agree with him.”

Peter Peterson, the co-founder of the Blackstone Group and the founder of the Peterson Foundation, which has long campaigned against the growing national debt, had some harsh words for his peers who had turned away from “revenue neutral policy.”

“Mortgaging our fiscal future for trillions in temporary tax cuts will hurt our economy over time, and every C.E.O. should know that,” he said. “True business patriots need to advocate for their country as well as their company.”

In the end, Mr. Peterson is right. The country — and businesses — will ultimately do better if the nation’s balance sheet is not bloated with debt. Part of the issue is generating enough revenue from taxes, and part is dealing with costs like health care and entitlements, which the tax overhaul plan does not even begin to tackle.

In the meantime, it would be nice to see more chief executives articulate the message that they were so vocal about years ago when they spoke about the importance of ensuring the long-term economic health of the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/business/corporate-taxes-national-debt.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-4&action=click&contentCollection=Business Day&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

But jobs!  We need more jobs America First Hey watch out for that Mexican. 

So, why are all of the Trumptards Companies products are made in SE Asia??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billy backstay said:

So, why are all of the Trumptards Companies products are made in SE Asia??

Business Freedom!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

So, why are all of the Trumptards Companies products are made in SE Asia??

Because of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton's peccadilloes.  If democRATS didn't suck so bad we wouldn't have to run up the national debt without noticing it during American years, and complain about it incessantly under Kenyan control.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billy backstay said:

So, why are all of the Trumptards Companies products are made in SE Asia??

Because he is one of those "job creators" we keep hearing so much about.  Need to read the fine print to know those are jobs for Asians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter that the mega rich will get the breaks - if you vote for the Republicans you too will be part of that club - soon, real soon.

 

 

It's been working for them for the past 37 years - why stop now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lark said:

The job creators know that unlike Jabsco, a financial pump must be primed.   Thus you pump water backward in the hope some of it will trickle back to its original owners after Laffler’s delicately curved champagne glass has been washed by the Phillipino steward.   

Do I get an A?   It’s out of the book but I find that priming thing confusing.   I have to suck real hard on the hose and start a siphon if I want a drink. .

A-

You didn't specify the John Calleija designed $400,000 (only $200,000 each!) champagne glasses.  

These-Are-the-Most-Expensive-Champagne-Glasses-in-the-World-via-pinterest.com_.jpg.15ef1f6bb858f593f2f37f40c4059000.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sean said:

Where are the righties? I would expect a vigorous defense of the Party program. 

No. We just don’t want to interrupt your circle jerk. Carry on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, badlatitude said:

We've seen the effect of tax cuts before and it is insulting to see the GOP trying to invent excuses so that we might fall for this scam yet again. The GOP just got done bragging about employment numbers and we are close to full employability according to some experts. Why then, would we need tax cuts to spur the economy? Why would any thinking human want to explode the deficit? This is the worst bill put forth in many moons and I hope it gets kicked to the gutter where it belongs.

DO9d1DAX4AAKaNN.jpg:large

There are actually several items in your list that I completely support - but, too many others that are harmful beyond any chance they might have at achieving the stated objective for me to call this anything but a grab by the wealthy.  I wrote all my congresscritters to voice my desire for a NO vote - this one vote will likely be the largest factor in determining any future support. 

BTW - the repeal of the johnson amendment doesn't end the separation of church and state, BL - as much as you'd enjoy seeing every church treated like a bowling league. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

There are actually several items in your list that I completely support - but, too many others that are harmful beyond any chance they might have at achieving the stated objective for me to call this anything but a grab by the wealthy.  I wrote all my congresscritters to voice my desire for a NO vote - this one vote will likely be the largest factor in determining any future support. 

BTW - the repeal of the johnson amendment doesn't end the separation of church and state, BL - as much as you'd enjoy seeing every church treated like a bowling league. 

I'm disappointed that you think that was my intent. I only want us to go back to what religion and government used to be, and I knew that the first time I had a conversation with an Evangelical 15 years ago. I asked, "Don't you think we should have a separation of church and state"? The answer was an overwhelming NO; I was told that I should be overjoyed living under a government of law joined with Jesus Christ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No. We just don’t want to interrupt your circle jerk. Carry on. 

As all you and Saorsa have done in this thread is embarrass yourselves, it's probably because you have nothing substantive to add as usual.

It's funny how you guys are for a taxation power grab by the Feds when it's the Rs in power. Ending the SALT tax deduction gives the feds more power over spending/taxation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I'm disappointed that you think that was my intent. I only want us to go back to what religion and government used to be, and I knew that the first time I had a conversation with an Evangelical 15 years ago. I asked, "Don't you think we should have a separation of church and state"? The answer was an overwhelming NO; I was told that I should be overjoyed living under a government of law joined with Jesus Christ. 

I can only gauge your intent by the content of what you contribute, BL.   Churches do a lot of good, and yet there are many who have fallen under a charismatic personality that seeks more to grow their own influence than they do to further the tenets of "the church".   I absolutely agree with preventing undue religious influence from creating a theocracy - that said?  I don't think that the elimination of any public biblical mention is necessary to make that happen.  Paint everything yellow - no pictures, no personal anything anywhere in any office (private or government) - tear down all public monuments, as I'm sure that someone SOMEWHERE has cause for offense at each and every one of 'em.  Even the monument to the Boll Weevil in Opp, AL is controversial, in that the Boll Weevil infestation caused many poor farmers to lose the family spread.  Do ya think they like being reminded of that every time they come to town?  

Or - is the better answer ensuring that everyone is treated fairly, using the existence of things we might not understand or agree with as means to better understand perspectives on both sides?   I know which one I'd choose - but, in this environment that idea has an ice-cube's chance in an incinerator.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion has NO place in the political or government world.

Period.

Full stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I can only gauge your intent by the content of what you contribute, BL.   Churches do a lot of good, and yet there are many who have fallen under a charismatic personality that seeks more to grow their own influence than they do to further the tenets of "the church".   I absolutely agree with preventing undue religious influence from creating a theocracy - that said?  I don't think that the elimination of any public biblical mention is necessary to make that happen.  Paint everything yellow - no pictures, no personal anything anywhere in any office (private or government) - tear down all public monuments, as I'm sure that someone SOMEWHERE has cause for offense at each and every one of 'em.  Even the monument to the Boll Weevil in Opp, AL is controversial, in that the Boll Weevil infestation caused many poor farmers to lose the family spread.  Do ya think they like being reminded of that every time they come to town?  

Or - is the better answer ensuring that everyone is treated fairly, using the existence of things we might not understand or agree with as means to better understand perspectives on both sides?   I know which one I'd choose - but, in this environment that idea has an ice-cube's chance in an incinerator.  

Denying Holy Communion because the Bishop doesn't like your politics, Denouncing a candidate from the pulpit because they don't like your stance on abortion, funding a public effort to eliminate gay rights and marriage, God is not a Republican or a Democrat, nor is God an Independent or a Libertarian. God is God. When you or your church become a mouthpiece for politics you cease to be religious and you cease to be a church.

The Founders were clear that there should be a separation from government and that means politics as well, the Founders understood that political entanglements would make religion weaker, not stronger. Religion in this country should stop using a club to get their message across it demeans their entire purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I'm disappointed that you think that was my intent. I only want us to go back to what religion and government used to be, and I knew that the first time I had a conversation with an Evangelical 15 years ago. I asked, "Don't you think we should have a separation of church and state"? The answer was an overwhelming NO; I was told that I should be overjoyed living under a government of law joined with Jesus Christ. 

we had an AMAZING conversation this weekend with my in-laws. They think that the gov't should subsidize religion. Wha?

I tried to patiently explain that the religious freedom and vitality they enjoy is because gov't ISNT involved - and all they have to do to see the reality of that is look at the UK. Pretty much dead and dying christianity. Why? UK pays the clergy, pays for buildings, etc. The new churches who don't get the subsidies are at a competitive disadvantage and struggle. 

So - they pull out some anecdotal evidence (ok, we know where this is going already) that the Highlands Church, some megachurch chain (I might have the name wrong ) is Successful in the UK - So There!

what they didn't want to hear is that 25% of the US are believers like them, In the UK is .2%.  

 

You want to kill religion? Let the gov't get involved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Denying Holy Communion because the Bishop doesn't like your politics, Denouncing a candidate from the pulpit because they don't like your stance on abortion, funding a public effort to eliminate gay rights and marriage, God is not a Republican or a Democrat, nor is God an Independent or a Libertarian. God is God. When you or your church become a mouthpiece for politics you cease to be religious and you cease to be a church.

The Founders were clear that there should be a separation from government and that means politics as well, the Founders understood that political entanglements would make religion weaker, not stronger. Religion in this country should stop using a club to get their message across it demeans their entire purpose.

 

Why do we even have to reinforce and reiterate this fact?  The Roy Moores, with their granite 10 commandments, in the Court House, have no business in politics, period, FULL STOP....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

Why do we even have to reinforce and reiterate this fact?  The Roy Moores, with their granite 10 commandments, in the Court House, have no business in politics, period, FULL STOP....

Some people believe their faith is more important than government and we should all have the wonderful opportunity to have joint prayer before we begin work, school, court, sports, and entertainment. We will have this argument time and time again until we force them back into their churches and out of the public square of politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Ending the SALT tax deduction gives the feds more power over spending/taxation.

Please explain that. I’m completely for ending this deduction. Why should the rest of the country subsidize the high tax states?  Boo fucking hoo. All it does is mask the fact that those taxes are so high in places like CA and NY and those state legislators are shutting their pants because they know they are about to be exposed. Again boo fucking hoo. 

I would also completely end the mortgage interest deduction. THAT is probably THE BIGGEST giveaway to the rich. 

As cheasie said there are some things in the plan I completely support. Others I do not at all. I’m on the fence as to whether I support it overall but I’m leaning towards NO. 

Personally I would end ALL deductions, simplify the tax code and phase out the taxes once you get to a certain % of the poverty line. I would treat ALL income the same, whether it be investment income or wages. 

I also like the fact that corporate taxes will be reduced. I would have liked to see a provision that they could lower it even more if they reinvested profits back into the company for hiring and infrastructure. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shootist Jeff said:

Please explain that. I’m completely for ending this deduction. Why should the rest of the country subsidize the high tax states?  Boo fucking hoo. All it does is mask the fact that those taxes are so high in places like CA and NY and those state legislators are shutting their pants. Again boo fucking hoo. 

I would also completely end the mortgage interest deduction. THAT is probably THE BIGGEST giveaway to the rich. 

As cheasie said there are some things in the plan I completely support. Others I do not at all. I’m on the fence as to whether I support it overall but I’m leaning towards NO. 

Personally I would end ALL deductions, simplify the tax code and phase out the taxes once you get to a certain % of the poverty line. I would treat ALL income the same, whether it be investment income or wages. 

I also like the fact that corporate taxes will be reduced. I would have liked to see a provision that they could lower it even more if they reinvested profits back into the company for hiring and infrastructure. 

 

 

Jeff hates income earners and loves him the rich. It's the only explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
  1. Gives most of the tax cuts to the richest 1%. The share of tax cuts going to the richest 1% is 62% in 2027, up from 18% in 2019. Their tax cut will be $33,000 in 2027, on average. [Tax Policy Center (TPC)]
  2. Gives 53% of the tax cuts to corporations and businesses. These tax cuts mostly benefit the wealthy. [Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT)]
  3. Makes 82 million middle-class families pay more in taxes. Half of all households—94 million—would pay more in taxes in 10 years. Of those, 82 million are of low- or middle-income. Two-thirds of families earning $55,000 to $93,000 will see a tax increase. [TPC]
  4. Pays for corporate tax cuts by taking healthcare away from working families and seniors.

• To raise revenue to pay for permanent corporate tax cuts, the plan repeals the requirement under the Affordable Care Act for individuals to have health coverage. This will lead to 13 million more people being uninsured and cause a 10% increase in health insurance premiums. [Congressional Budget Office (CBO)]

• The corporate tax rate is slashed from 35% to 20%, losing $1.3 trillionover 10 years That’s almost the $1.5 trillion cut the Republican budget proposes for Medicare ($473 billion) and Medicaid ($1 trillion). [JCT, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)]

• The tax bill would trigger immediate Medicare cuts of at least $25 billion a year, and more than $100 billion in other cuts to agriculture subsidies, student loans, military retirement and more, because it adds $1.4 trillion to the debt.  [(CBO)]

  1. Makes corporate tax cuts permanent, but makes tax cuts for individuals and families temporary. All the tax cuts that benefit the middle-class will expire after 2025, while the corporate tax cuts are permanent. The plan makes permanent changes to the way tax brackets are adjusted for inflation, resulting in a growing tax increase over time. [CBPP]
  2. Adds $1.4 trillion to the national debt jeopardizing critical services. The plan includes at least $1.4 trillion in tax cuts—and possibly as much as $1.9 trillion—that are not paid for by closing loopholes used by the wealthy and corporations. This will balloon the deficit and further endanger funding for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education and more. [CBPP]
  3. Puts wealthy business owners over seniors. Wealthy business owners and investors—including real estate developers like Donald Trump—get a $225 billion tax cut from the effective drop in the top tax rate for “pass-through” business income from 39.6% to 32%, along with other tax changes on pass-through income. (Pass-throughs include partnerships, S corporations and sole proprietorships, and their owners pay taxes at the individual rate.) By comparison, the Republican budget cuts Medicare by $473 billion. [JCT, TPC and CBPP]
  4. Kills American jobs by encouraging outsourcing and profit shifting. The plan creates a territorial tax system, which exempts foreign profits from U.S. taxes. While the plan will tax some of those offshore profits, the effective tax rate will be far below the U.S. rate. U.S. multinationals will have even more tax incentives to outsource more jobs and shift more profits offshore.
  5. Hands a $565 billion tax cut to offshore tax dodgers. American corporations have $2.6 trillion in profits stashed offshore on which they owe $750 billion in U.S. taxes. Rather than make them pay what they owe, like all the rest of us do, the tax plan will charge them only $185 billion—over a half-trillion-dollar discount. [Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) and JCT]
  6. Repeals the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) hurting the middle class. One-third of taxpayers making $50-75,000 take this deduction for state and local income and property taxes, as do half of those making $75-100,000. Eliminating SALT will put pressure on state and local budgets, likely forcing cuts to education, health care, and infrastructure. [Government Finance Officers Assoc. and CBPP]
  7. Helps Donald Trump pay much less in taxes. The plan repeals the alternative minimum tax (AMT), losing $770 billion. Without the AMT, Trump would have paid just a 4% tax rate on $153 million in income one year. But thanks to the AMT, he paid $38 million for a tax rate of 25%. [JCT and New York Times]
  8. Lets many wealthy heirs avoid paying the estate tax. The estate tax is substantially weakened, losing $83 billion and allowing more rich families to inherit wealth tax-free. The tax now only applies to estates worth over $5.5 million per person—about 5,500 estates. Under the bill, only estates worth at least $11 million per person (about 1,800 estates) would pay the tax. [JCT, TPC, CBPP]
  9. Breaks Trump’s promise to close the “carried interest” loophole benefitting Wall Street. Remember when candidate Trump promised to get rid of this loophole that primarily benefits private equity fund managers? The Senate plan keeps it in place. [New York Times]

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Jeff hates income earners and loves him the rich. It's the only explanation.

Really??  Based on what?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Really??  Based on what?  

the real money is not in taking away a little pet deduction here, or there.

it's addressing the elephant that the rich don't pay ANY taxes. Why should they? Screw the income, give me stock.  let it vest, when I need cash I'll take out a loan, then when I croak I can give it to my kids at the new tax basis, they pay off the loan(s) with tax free money.  woohoo!

Or, I'm already rich. I take daddy's tax free money, and I buy some art. or stocks, or a shopping mall. In the world Pinketty describes, Capital appreciates faster than income, concentrating the wealth more and more, increasing my inheritance, so when I need cash, I take a loan, rinse and repeat.

Income taxes barely touch these folks. Consumption taxes? haha, they'll buy somewhere else. Asset value change taxes is the only way to catch it. Think Household Property taxes where EVERYTHING is included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Face it, the US is in a class war and has been since about 1980.  Only one side is fighting it, but it is a war nonetheless.  The other side is too busy noticing people with different skin color, religion, sexual preference, etc. to notice who is really screwing them.  Once they do notice, the war they fight will far less passive aggressive than the one which has been waged against them for these many years.  

"It is a commonplace of history that  governments use national animosities, foreign wars and the glamour of empire-making in order to bemuse the popular mind and divert rising resentment against domestic abuses." - JA Hobson, written in 1902 at the end of the Boer War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The axe is going to fall on the now-excess staff on the Fiscal Responsibility Express today @Dog. Another yuge group of boisterous riders got off at “We’re not the party of pedophiles” after we lost a bunch at “The democRATS are worse.”  

It seems that the loudest and proudest were just faking it when the black fella was running the show. Lots of legroom now though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both tax bills are an abomination for anyone who believes in anything approximating fiscal responsibility.

Submitted emails bitching out all relevant congressmen/senators.  I'll call em next week and follow up.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

.....     ....     ...     ...

I also like the fact that corporate taxes will be reduced. I would have liked to see a provision that they could lower it even more if they reinvested profits back into the company for hiring and infrastructure. 

 

PRESTO!

You get your wish. Corporate investment in research, infrastructure, employment, community programs, etc etc......... a wide range of things within the good ol' USA...... are already deductible from corporate taxes.

Guess what, the 1%ers want more. They want to be able to deduct their private jets, apparently. And since they are the one giving money to politicians, they get to call the tune.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My representative's response to my inquiry - I'm quite disappointed, as I've gotten "real" replies (likely from a staffer) to previous inquiries.  My response to this informed Mrs. Comstock that she's lost my support over this vote. 
 

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************

Dear Mr. AGITC,

          Thank you for contacting me about  your concerns about the ongoing debate on  tax reform.   I appreciate you sharing your views and concerns with me.

          After working for weeks with my colleagues, and listening to my constituents about ways to improve the House   Tax Cuts and Jobs Act , I supported moving the bill forward as the next step to bringing tax cuts to hardworking taxpayers and businesses and creating a healthy economy that allows American workers to compete and win.   The status quo is driving businesses and jobs away and we have to modernize our tax code to meet the challenges of our innovative 21st   century economy.     I expect the bill will continue to be improved as the Senate version moves forward and then as a compromise bill is worked out in a conference committee that takes into consideration many of the remaining priorities that continue to be debated.

          Cutting our taxes and making our tax rates more competitive  will jumpstart businesses of all sizes and get wages rising again and put more money in paychecks and provide more opportunity for all.   The legislation simplifies the individual rate structure, reducing  it  from seven brackets to four, and  it  doubles the standard deduction for non-itemizers.   The 401(k) and the charitable deductions provisions in the tax code remain to protect and promote savings for retirement and  provide for a more secure future.   T he Alternative Minimum Tax is completely eliminated, which currently affects tens of thousands  of taxpayers  in the 10th   District.  

          T his tax reform package included our hard fought provisions to increase the child tax credit from a current $1,000 that phases out currently at $110,000 of income   for a family  to an increased $1,600 per child tax credit that goes up to $230,000  of income  for families.   The bill also provides an additional $600 credit for parents which means a total of $3,800 tax credit for a family of four (2 parents, 2 kids). This bill also preserves the important Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to help two earner families  who have child care costs or care for other dependents such as a family member with a disability. The important  adoption tax credit which had not been in an earlier version of the bill, was reinstated as part of the ongoing negotiations.

          The process  and further negotiations continue.     I will continue to work to improve this bill as it proceeds through the process – in particular my concerns and those of my constituents about state and local tax deductions and the need for more support for home owners and those who will still itemize under a new system.     In the House bill, we were able to preserve property deductions up to $10,000 for taxpayers who itemize but we still need to do more in revising provisions  so that we  will get more tax relief to  hardworking families with mortgages and high taxes.       We also need to provide more support for our small businesses so that all will benefit  with tax cuts and the  updating  and modernizing of  our tax code   for the first time in 30 years.                        

          It is a privilege to serve you in the Tenth District.   I may also be contacted at my Sterling office at 703-404-6903, or my Washington, D.C. office at 202-225-5136.   By visiting  http://comstock.house.gov , you can sign up to receive my email newsletters and follow my efforts to serve you.   You can also follow me on  Facebook and  Twitter for real-time updates on my activities in Congress and in the District.   If I may ever be of service, please do not hesitate to contact me.      

         

Sincerely,
transparent_sig.png
Barbara Comstock
Member of Congress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

PRESTO!

You get your wish. Corporate investment in research, infrastructure, employment, community programs, etc etc......... a wide range of things within the good ol' USA...... are already deductible from corporate taxes.

Guess what, the 1%ers want more. They want to be able to deduct their private jets, apparently. And since they are the one giving money to politicians, they get to call the tune.

-DSK

 

 

.@RepChrisCollins (R-NY) on tax reform: "My donors are basically saying, 'Get it done or don’t ever call me again'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean said:

 

 

.@RepChrisCollins (R-NY) on tax reform: "My donors are basically saying, 'Get it done or don’t ever call me again'

I strongly suspect that lobbyists wrote the tax bill. It's been the standard way of authoring legislation for quite a while (decades) although it's not often talked about. Democrats are just as guilty, usually......... one of the reasons for the huge outcry against ObamaCare is that (gasp) a lot of actual legislators wrote major parts of it, to the detriment of corporate interests.

So, a lot of Republican Congresspeople and Senators are just as surprised as the rest of us. Corporate lobbyists wrote a huge amount of self-interest into their tax wish list? Who would have guessed such a thing?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, billy backstay said:

 

Why do we even have to reinforce and reiterate this fact?  The Roy Moores, with their granite 10 commandments, in the Court House, have no business in politics, period, FULL STOP....

Got it - 10 commandments = bad, LGBTQ rainbows are good. 

The "anti-religious" advocates want to permit a voice to every other aggregation of interests, while trying to suppress the voice of any aggregation that is based in religious tenets.   BLs comments above are a perfect example of this attitude and behavior.    While I agree completely with avoiding the establishment of a theocracy - that doesn't mean that I agree with trying to silence and negate the voice of someone solely because their perspective is based upon religious tenets, shoot - you rabid lefties probably agree with most of them yourselves.  Where the adherence to a religious tenet would create an infringement upon someone else?  Then those situations should be discussed so that a workable compromise is reached - simply saying that the people holding the religious tenet lose in a discussion due to separation of church/state isn't at all what I imagine our FFs intended, and such an approach only serves to alienate and inflame a large portion of the population. 

You can't have it both ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Got it - 10 commandments = bad, LGBTQ rainbows are good. 

The "anti-religious" advocates want to permit a voice to every other aggregation of interests, while trying to suppress the voice of any aggregation that is based in religious tenets.   BLs comments above are a perfect example of this attitude and behavior.    While I agree completely with avoiding the establishment of a theocracy - that doesn't mean that I agree with trying to silence and negate the voice of someone solely because their perspective is based upon religious tenets, shoot - you rabid lefties probably agree with most of them yourselves.  Where the adherence to a religious tenet would create an infringement upon someone else?  Then those situations should be discussed so that a workable compromise is reached - simply saying that the people holding the religious tenet lose in a discussion due to separation of church/state isn't at all what I imagine our FFs intended, and such an approach only serves to alienate and inflame a large portion of the population. 

You can't have it both ways. 

The man has said that (his) god’s laws supersede the laws of the United States. Anyone who does not respect the rule of law has no business in government in any capacity, let alone development of our laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Both tax bills are an abomination for anyone who believes in anything approximating fiscal responsibility.

Submitted emails bitching out all relevant congressmen/senators.  I'll call em next week and follow up.

 

Thank you. It was getting uncomfortable being all alone with Sol...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I strongly suspect that lobbyists wrote the tax bill. It's been the standard way of authoring legislation for quite a while (decades) although it's not often talked about. Democrats are just as guilty, usually......... one of the reasons for the huge outcry against ObamaCare is that (gasp) a lot of actual legislators wrote major parts of it, to the detriment of corporate interests.

So, a lot of Republican Congresspeople and Senators are just as surprised as the rest of us. Corporate lobbyists wrote a huge amount of self-interest into their tax wish list? Who would have guessed such a thing?

-DSK

Clearly not a left v right thing for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Got it - 10 commandments = bad, LGBTQ rainbows are good. 

The "anti-religious" advocates want to permit a voice to every other aggregation of interests, while trying to suppress the voice of any aggregation that is based in religious tenets.   BLs comments above are a perfect example of this attitude and behavior.    While I agree completely with avoiding the establishment of a theocracy - that doesn't mean that I agree with trying to silence and negate the voice of someone solely because their perspective is based upon religious tenets, shoot - you rabid lefties probably agree with most of them yourselves.  Where the adherence to a religious tenet would create an infringement upon someone else?  Then those situations should be discussed so that a workable compromise is reached - simply saying that the people holding the religious tenet lose in a discussion due to separation of church/state isn't at all what I imagine our FFs intended, and such an approach only serves to alienate and inflame a large portion of the population. 

You can't have it both ways. 

Exactly. You can't have it both ways.

If you want to allow the Ten Commandments to be carved on the door of a courtroom, then you must also allow some verses of the Koran, and perhaps a few Wiccan symbols.

"Freedom of Religion" does not mean using taxpayer money to impose your religion on others.

Understanding this basic principle of American liberty does not equal being gay. I can see why you're considered so enlightened, for a "conservative"

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Exactly. You can't have it both ways.

If you want to allow the Ten Commandments to be carved on the door of a courtroom, then you must also allow some verses of the Koran, and perhaps a few Wiccan symbols.

"Freedom of Religion" does not mean using taxpayer money to impose your religion on others.

Understanding this basic principle of American liberty does not equal being gay. I can see why you're considered so enlightened, for a "conservative"

-DSK

Try to address the substance of my comment?  I bet ya can if you try REAL hard 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Try to address the substance of my comment?  I bet ya can if you try REAL hard 

Nope. It’s damn hard as your comment is substance-free. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Try to address the substance of my comment?  I bet ya can if you try REAL hard 

Nope. It’s damn hard as your comment is substance-free. 

That's a bit harsh. Here's what A-guy hates, when I quote him being an asshole:

3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Got it - 10 commandments = bad, LGBTQ rainbows are good. 

The "anti-religious" advocates want to permit a voice to every other aggregation of interests, while trying to suppress the voice of any aggregation that is based in religious tenets.   BLs comments above are a perfect example of this attitude and behavior.    While I agree completely with avoiding the establishment of a theocracy - that doesn't mean that I agree with trying to silence and negate the voice of someone solely because their perspective is based upon religious tenets, shoot - you rabid lefties probably agree with most of them yourselves.  Where the adherence to a religious tenet would create an infringement upon someone else?  Then those situations should be discussed so that a workable compromise is reached - simply saying that the people holding the religious tenet lose in a discussion due to separation of church/state isn't at all what I imagine our FFs intended, and such an approach only serves to alienate and inflame a large portion of the population. 

You can't have it both ways. 

The various substantial points: "10 commandments = bad, LGBTQ rainbows are good" implies that anybody who wants equal rights for gays must hate Christians. The assumption is that there is some caucus or PAC which is devoted silencing any "religious" (meaning Christian, because what other religions are there?) speech or writing. Some "conservatives" go so far as to imply that this is a huge pan-liberal mega-progressive agenda.

"Where (would) the adherence to a religious tenet would create an infringement upon someone else?" such an innocent question. And observe the irrational reaction when I suggested that it's not so much that goddam faggot libby-rulls hate religion and want to silence it, as it is a lack of space above the courtroom doors to place slogans from other religions representing a large number of US citizens. Because of course those -other- religions don't get to spend our hard-earned tax dollars on carving -their- tenets on gov't buildings. Why would they, when America is a free country with freedom of religion which means that "conservatives" from the correct religion get to read their favorite slogans all over the halls of justice but everybody else can just suck it.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Why should the rest of the country subsidize the high tax states?

California is being subsidized by the rest of the country? Good lawd that's funny.

Right now the federal government has chosen to treat SALT income taxation - no matter what the rate is - as preferential to federal taxation. If you don't see how ending the preference is a power grab, I can't help you. I will say it's funny as shit to hear all the "taxed twice" inheritance tax arguments from the same people who want to end the SALT deduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A report shows the Senate GOP tax bill ultimately raises taxes on 50 percent of people. That’s a problem.

Republicans are losing the public relations battle on their tax-cut bills. While a tax bill cleared the House last week, several Senate Republicans appear skeptical of their chamber's version. And polls show that Americans are much more opposed to the GOP's tax effort than supportive — a fact that has to be weighing on those same wavering Senate Republicans.

A new report should make it even more difficult for these GOP senators to get to yes.

The report from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, released Monday, contains this very unhelpful passage:

On average in 2027, taxes would rise modestly for the lowest-income group, change little for middle-income groups, and decrease for higher-income groups. Compared to current law, 9 percent of taxpayers would pay more in 2019, 12 percent in 2025, and 50 percent in 2027.

It's not difficult to see this winding up in just about every piece of Democratic pushback on the Senate GOP's tax bill. “Half of Americans would wind up paying more in taxes” is a pretty powerful talking point — as is “the wealthy clearly benefit from this bill, but the middle class doesn't.”

The big reason for the jump in those paying more taxes in 2027 is that the Senate GOP's bill lets personal tax cuts expire in 2026, while making its corporate tax cuts permanent. The reason Republicans did this was to curb the cuts' effect on the deficit. Essentially, the complex workings of the Senate require that the bill increase the deficit only so much ($1.5 trillion over 10 years) if it is to be passed through what's known as “budget reconciliation.” Passing something through reconciliation allows for it to clear with 50 votes rather than 60, by not allowing for a Democratic filibuster. So Senate Republicans were forced to reduce the deficit impact somewhere. They chose to sunset the individual income tax cuts in 2026 and to eliminate Obamacare's individual mandate.

Whether either of those things are contained in the final package, we'll have to see. Republicans seem to be basically including these things just so they can pass something — anything — that would allow them to bring the Senate bill and the House bill to a conference committee. But whatever comes out of the conference committee would also have to pass in both chambers and would be subject to budget reconciliation rules.

And that's if it even gets to that point. For now this is what the Senate GOP is preparing to vote on. And Democrats can credibly make an argument that the GOP is voting to raise taxes on half of Americans — half of Americans who happen to not be among the wealthy. They can also credibly argue that eliminating the individual mandate could lead to millions of Americans no longer having health insurance. That's a pretty potent one-two punch.

The House could also vote to simply pass whatever passed through the Senate, which would not require a conference committee and would send the bill straight to President Trump. In other words, this Senate bill could be the final product. You might remember last time we were in this situation — on replacing Obamacare — some Senate Republicans wanted to vote for their bill with the assurance that the House wouldn't just take the same bill and pass it. Essentially, they wanted to ensure that the bill they were voting for wasn't enacted into law. (Isn't Congress great?)

The GOP's desire to pass something is extremely strong right now. They are 10 months into control of Washington without a major legislative victory. But to make that happen, it is being forced to make some decisions that could prove extremely problematic politically. This report drives that point home.

Aaron Blake is senior political reporter for The Fix. Follow @aaronblake

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/21/__trashed-2/?utm_term=.1bee92be5f3a

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

These people think the masses are fools. 

They're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, saxdog said:

A tax holiday is included in the bill for the best people.

Nothing helps the downtrodden like a tax break on estates over eleven million bucks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2017 at 1:52 PM, billy backstay said:

Republicans seem to be basically including these things just so they can pass something — anything

Passing something - anything..... is bad.

Sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of 38 economists, 37 said the GOP tax plans would cause the debt to increase "substantially" faster than the economy. The 38th economist misread the question. (Washington Post)

An overwhelming majority of academic economists say in a new survey that the Republican tax proposals would cause America's debt to grow by one critical measure.

Thirty-seven of 38 experts surveyed by the University of Chicago's Initiative on Global Markets agreed that the GOP tax bills in Congress would cause U.S. debt to increase "substantially" faster than the economy.

Only one economist — Stanford's Liran Einav — said that he was “uncertain” if the bills would exacerbate America's debt-to-GDP ratio. But after the survey's release, Einav said his response had been a mistake, and that he actually agrees with the economists who expect the debt ratio to soar. (Four other economists in the IGM panel didn't answer the question one way or the other.)........................

 

 

36% of Americans expect to pay more federal, state, and local taxes under the House tax plan. 39% said they “strongly” or “somewhat” support it, while 31% oppose it and the rest are undecided. (Politico)

.........36 percent expect to pay more federal, state and local taxes under the plan, despite Republicans touting it as a tax cut for most Americans. Twenty percent said it would lower their taxes and 19 percent said they would stay about the same. Twenty-five percent weren’t sure what affect it would have on them or offered no opinion.

Most of those who expect to pay more — 44 percent of the respondents — put their income at $100,000 or more. Among those with $50,000 to $100,000 in annual income, 39 percent said they would pay more. And 33 percent of those earning less than $50,000 expect a tax hike.........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2017 at 12:49 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I will say it's funny as shit to hear all the "taxed twice" inheritance tax arguments from the same people who want to end the SALT deduction.

Apples and orangutans.

You are NOT paying taxes twice for the same thing under SALT.  You are paying taxes to your state or city for your stuff like running the state and city gov't, fire, Po-leece, local school boards, etc.  You are paying federal tax dollars for Defense, interstate highways, federal gov't operations, FEMA death camps, etc.  So NO, you are NOT being doubly taxed.  SO explain to me why you should get a SALT deduction on your Fed taxes?  IN essence, the rest of the country with low or no SALT subsidizes you because someone has to pay those SALT tax deductions.  By deducting it on the federal return, the federal gov't (i.e. ALL of us) are subsidizing those high SALT states.

In the estate tax area you have already presumably paid taxes on that property, house, income that's in the bank, etc.  The death tax just taxes it again when it changes hands.  I have no issue with some tax on inheritance.  10-15%.... maybe.  But saying the gov't gets HALF when you die, that's fucked up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2017 at 8:30 AM, Steam Flyer said:

Exactly. You can't have it both ways.

If you want to allow the Ten Commandments to be carved on the door of a courtroom, then you must also allow some verses of the Koran, and perhaps a few Wiccan symbols.

"Freedom of Religion" does not mean using taxpayer money to impose your religion on others.

Except that our legal system doesn't trace its roots back to Islam or Wiccan.  It traces it back to the Judaeo-Christian religion.  The 10 commandments is not an imposition of a certain religion on any one who walks through a courtroom door.  That is a specious argument and has been red herring for far too long.  The 10 Commandments or other passages engraved in marble are simply an acknowledgement of the roots and historical basis of our legal system.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2017 at 6:22 AM, Steam Flyer said:

I strongly suspect that lobbyists wrote the tax bill.

Ya think???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2017 at 7:04 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Face it, the US is in a class war and has been since about 1980.  Only one side is fighting it, but it is a war nonetheless.  The other side is too busy noticing people with different skin color, religion, sexual preference, etc. to notice who is really screwing them.  Once they do notice, the war they fight will far less passive aggressive than the one which has been waged against them for these many years.  

The side that is winning so bigly now doesn’t want to soil their hands with work. Clean hands in the shining city on the hill.   Fear pricks them on, even as it pricks them off, to quote the Bard.  It’s a fetish thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Except that our legal system doesn't trace its roots back to Islam or Wiccan.  It traces it back to the Judaeo-Christian religion.  The 10 commandments is not an imposition of a certain religion on any one who walks through a courtroom door.  That is a specious argument and has been red herring for far too long.  The 10 Commandments or other passages engraved in marble are simply an acknowledgement of the roots and historical basis of our legal system.  

That's a good excuse. 1- it's not really true, our legal system has some roots in Roman law and some in Germanic tribal custom. 2- is any American free to pursue the religion of his choice, or does our gov't impose religious beliefs on all citizens? You can't have it both ways.

The pretense that we are "a Christian nation" has been a red herring far too long, it's just another damn lie from those who want to brainwash citizens.

If you must have inspirational passages engraved on the marble halls of justice, why not Shakespeare? Better yet, Mark Twain?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Apples and orangutans.

You are NOT paying taxes twice for the same thing under SALT.  You are paying taxes to your state or city for your stuff like running the state and city gov't, fire, Po-leece, local school boards, etc.  You are paying federal tax dollars for Defense, interstate highways, federal gov't operations, FEMA death camps, etc.  So NO, you are NOT being doubly taxed.  SO explain to me why you should get a SALT deduction on your Fed taxes?  IN essence, the rest of the country with low or no SALT subsidizes you because someone has to pay those SALT tax deductions.  By deducting it on the federal return, the federal gov't (i.e. ALL of us) are subsidizing those high SALT states.

In the estate tax area you have already presumably paid taxes on that property, house, income that's in the bank, etc.  The death tax just taxes it again when it changes hands.  I have no issue with some tax on inheritance.  10-15%.... maybe.  But saying the gov't gets HALF when you die, that's fucked up. 

Jesus Jeff, no you haven’t paid tax on most of your estate. Assuming you’ve had it for awhile, capital appreciation should be MOST of your estate. Estates don’t get big from saving income, they get big from compounding.

you know this is true, stop apologizing for a crap bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites