The GOP Plan is the Biggest Tax INCREASE in American History, By Far

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Dec 1, 2017.

  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You think we should only spend the same? You want to make it even or something? How much more did we spend than Germany and Japan when we defeated them? And we only have estimates how much China and Russia spend and you really think we should make sure we don't pay our military personnel as much as they pay theirs? What if we have to fight China and Russia at the same time and then Iran makes it's moves on our allies in the ME? How much should we spend then?
     
  2. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you really this ignorant of why?

    "Hatch’s revised plan would sunset key middle-class tax cuts starting in 2026 to comply with Senate rules"
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-senate-as-house-nears-vote-tax-debate-update

    Get enough Democrats to vote for them and get them permanent.

    So convince me you voted for Republicans to pass the tax rate cuts and that you will in the future to make them permanent or are you going to blame Republicans for not stopping your guys opposition to them?[/QUOTE]
    Limo libs will "pay" for tax cuts

    Republicans devised a way to get rich Democrats to "pay" for the tax cuts -- by making limo liberals pay more in taxes.

    The tax cuts strip the tax deductions liberals enjoy.

    Boy are they mad.

    [​IMG]

    From Bloomberg:
    Some of the biggest losers under the Republican tax overhaul include upper-middle class families in high-tax areas like New York City, graduate students, government workers and public school teachers.

    The one thing they have in common? They’re mostly Democrats.

    President Donald Trump and GOP leaders have promised that the two main goals of a tax code revamp are to benefit middle-class families and to slash the corporate tax rate. But paying for those changes has come in large part at the expense of breaks that are important to residents of high-tax states, which tend to be Democrat.

    Benefits used by universities and graduate students are also on the chopping block. And the repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate to buy insurance -- a centerpiece of Democrats’ biggest achievement in a generation -- is estimated to generate some $300 billion to pay for tax cuts.

    “It’s death to Democrats,” said conservative economist Stephen Moore, who advised Trump’s campaign on tax policy.

    “They go after state and local taxes, which weakens public employee unions. They go after university endowments, and universities have become play pens of the left. And getting rid of the mandate is to eventually dismantle Obamacare,” Moore said in an interview, arguing that it would accelerate “a death spiral” in the health-care law’s marketplaces.

    Republicans are making them put their money where their mouths are.

    http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2017/12/limo-libs-will-pay-for-tax-cuts.html#more
     
  3. Fenton Lum

    Fenton Lum Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't be silly, there's plenty of space in between what we do now, and the extreme situation you posture here as the lone alternative. We no longer spend for defense; we spend to occupy the planet while american/western and allied companies extract the natural resources, and we have no compunctions whatsoever about dealing with either communists or Wahabist terrorists, do it all the time, doing it right now in Yemen and Syria for starters. We’ve spent $1M per day, per soldier in Afghanistan, for how long? And we’re sending another 4000 soldiers? That’s not a war; they have mineral wealth in the trillions. Same with North Korea, that’s what that’s about, really. That’s also why we are so heavily invested in the continual destabilization of the middle east. Iran? We all know.

    Eisenhower was right; he saw the potential of this developing and warned of it. We’ve arrived and the citizenry is under surveillance as no population in history, rather incredible. And utterly bipartisan, elections have no consequences in that regard. At all. We are cannibalizing our society economically as all empires do in decline to serve a select few who benefit from the plunder of the outer reaches of empire. The folks who benefit from this endless war and exploitation of both those at the outer reaches of empire, as well as those of us within, have no allegiances to any nation state, party, ideology, religion, or community. Their tribe is the aristocracy and you all simply do not matter.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
  4. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually it fluctuated under Obama.
     
  5. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ... Comparing Obama's deficits to the current tax "reform" is pulling wool over sheeps' eyes.[/QUOTE]If we pretend Obama's debt explosion didn't occur, do we still have to service that debt?

    Tax Bill May Spark Exodus From Wealthy High-Tax States

    The Major Wealth Migration.


    [​IMG]

    The bill is sure to have sweeping effects on all taxpayers, especially those in high wealth states.

    “(Eliminating the state and local tax deduction) could help on the margins to drive people from those wealthy states to lower tax states because their burdens are going to increase significantly,”

    “What’s more, it’s going to make it more difficult during the next recession for wealthy states to increase taxes without being burdensome to the underlying economy.”

    Many of the Rich, Who Kept Claiming They Wanted To Pay, Will Pay Under New Tax Plan
    If we take the example of a high-net-worth individual living in California and making $1 million a year, that wealthy person’s state taxes amount to $102,000. If that wealthy person owns a $1.5 million home, property taxes would be around $27,000. As the new plan eliminates mortgage interest deduction above $500,000, this wealthy person would lose the ability to deduct roughly $20,000 in interest expenses.

    In total, this wealthy person would lose roughly $150,000 in deductions. At a 40 percent tax rate, this wealthy person would end up paying around $60,000 more in taxes under the GOP plan.

    “The idea that this is a tax giveaway to the rich just doesn’t hold true,” Financial Sense’s Jim Puplava said.

    “It may help somebody that lives in Florida, who doesn’t have to worry about state tax deductions, because there’s no state income tax. And it does help out corporations by lowering their tax rate… but as far as wealthy individuals who lose their itemized deductions, this is going to, in effect, be a tax increase.”

    Millionaire Migration Patterns
    Generally, high-net-worth individuals don’t tend to move state-to-state very often, but that’s probably about to change.

    One notable example occurred last year when billionaire hedge fund manager David Tepper relocated from high income tax New Jersey to Florida, which doesn’t have a state income tax. This not only saved Tepper millions of dollars, but also cost New Jersey as well.

    If the GOP plan goes through, high tax states may have to rethink their tax strategy.

    “I think we’re going to see a big migration,” Jim Puplava told listeners this week.

    “We’re already losing almost 100,000 taxpayers per year in California. … If this tax bill goes through, this is really going to force a lot of people out. This is going to have a major impact on those high-tax states, and this is going to be a revenue drain.”

    Ramifications Down the Road
    With the deductibility of state and property taxes under threat, where every dollar paid saves 40 cents in federal taxes, we could see the effective tax rate spike.

    Also, historically, when the federal government has eliminated deductions in exchange for lower tax rates, it has a habit of hiking those rates back up in short order. This happened in 1986 under Ronald Reagan’s tax reform where we saw President Bush Sr. and President Clinton hike rates up to the current 39.6 percent rate on the high end.

    “This is a major game changer,” Puplava said.

    “Now that it looks like we have a greater likelihood of this tax bill getting passed, we’re going to see a demographic migration.”

    Time to Step Up And Pay Your Fair Share!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-07/tax-bill-may-spark-exodus-high-tax-states
     
  6. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In June 2016, the New York Times reported on the annual report by actuaries on when Social Security's surplus would run dry.

    From the New York Times:
    Social Security trust funds for old-age benefits and disability insurance, taken together, could be depleted in 2034. Tax collections would then be sufficient to pay about three-fourths of promised benefits through 2090, they said.

    From Market Watch:
    According to the 2017 report by the trustees for Social Security, the main Social Security trust fund is projected to pay full benefits until 2035.

    Trump's already gained a year. If he continues that through two terms and Pence does the same, that puts us good out until 2050, which would fund the system well through the retirement of the peak of the Baby Boomers, the demographic bulge that has been the cause of such consternation.

    Way to go Trump!

    Make Social Security Great Again!
     
  7. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And you sound very young and wet behind the ears.


    I've read enough of Cato's articles to see how they cherry-pick and distort facts by using cherry-picked numbers mixed with their partisan assumptions and conclusions. They aren't known as a "think tank" for nothing.


    Not if the cap is lifted, except for the top 16% of taxpayers.


    73% - http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/rdrenka/ui320-75/presandcongress.asp


    Another personal attack. That makes 5. ONE MORE AND YOU GET IGNORED.


    Ok, that's 6. Buh-bye. Don't expect another reply.
     
  8. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    THAT'S RIDICULOUS! Tell me exactly what Trump did to make the Trust Fund last longer. You only presented ONE YEAR under Obama, so that doesn't qualify as a trend or even a repeated fluctuation. If you read the annual reports, you will read the explanation for the changes, and it has to do with the many assumptions that change, like interest rate changes, life expectancy changes, unemployment, etc.

    To blame the changes on the president reveals a childish innocence of the real causes, all of which are explained in the Trustees' Report each year.
     
  9. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,789
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. The billionaires are selling America a bill of goods again, widening the gap further between the rich and all others. It's been going on for years, since the '80s, merely disguised in different methodology.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/u...tax-cuts-since-1980s-have-been-gain-gain.html
    While rates for all American taxpayers have fallen to near 50-year lows, the wealthy have reaped the most savings from the changes because they derive a larger proportion of their income from investments.

    Between 1985 and 2008, the wealthiest 400 Americans saw the percentage of their income paid in federal income taxes drop from 29 percent to 18 percent, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service.
    ....
    One outspoken critic has been Warren E. Buffett, a billionaire himself. Mr. Buffett stirred debate about the issue last year when he wrote an opinion article for The New York Times stating that the low rates for investment income had allowed him to pay only about 17 percent of his income in federal taxes, less than the effective rate paid by his secretary or any of the other 19 workers in his office.
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  10. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet Obama lost several years of the Social Security Trust fund, and Trump has already gained one!

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2017
  11. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So who do we borrow bombs, bullets and air refueling from?
     
  12. freakonature

    freakonature Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    10,885
    Likes Received:
    1,408
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You continually attack me, yet I'm not counting them. I guess I'm younger and thicker skinned. Also, just because I don't want to be your generations cash cow doesn't make me "wet behind the ears". It makes me informed, fed up, and a little angry.

    You do not sound like someone that frequents cato studies. You probably avoid most libertarian outlets.

    This is straight up false. If the cap is lifted, the program may survive to continue paying the average citizen less than they pay in.

    Is this your way of admitting you were completely off base blaming republicans? Don't get me wrong, they are terrible, but man, democrats screw stuff up. At least, back in your day, most democrats had a brain.

    It's not a personal attack when you simply beak down what someone statements actually mean. When you make statements against your fellow man, don't get angry when I oppose your "good will" motive for SS.

    LOL, you kept repeating the whole "men with guns will confiscate enough money from everyone to protect me" argument anyway. You can't argue the fact that your generation ran up serous debt while spending the ss fund, continually increased the fica tax rate, left it still partially unfunded, and vote to keep younger generations in servitude until you die. All the while, more and more accept the reality that they'll never get closer to their money back. WWII greatest generation passed the baton, and your generation completely dropped it. What you did do was make a large portion of Americans aware of the need for retirement saving because they understand they've got to pay for yours as well as theirs.
     
  13. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,807
    Likes Received:
    9,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dear lord....they didn’t need one democrat to make that happen. NOT ONE. They didn’t have one democrat vote for these cuts. They are using reconciliation to pass these. You know, that reconciliation your side said was “undemocratic” when the dems tried to use it.

    How many times do you have to be told ? The dems did NOT increase spending 18%, that money was already spent under Bush. Obama just paid for it. This is a FACT that is undeniable.

    First of all, those “senate rules” were put in by Republicans. Second, the entirety of the plan was to cut corporate taxes, but the only way they could sell them was to give the minions something, and they did that by making the “something” temporary, but in the end, they use the middle class to pay for the tax cuts to corporations.

    If they wanted to give the middle class a tax cut they absolutly could have done that. first, they could have cut the corporate rate to 25%, and then made the middle class cuts permanent. Second, they could remove some corporate breaks, or even left out the brazen one-off carve outs for their friends (including the Koch and Devos family) and left in some of the breaks for the middle class. They could have fazed the corporate tax cut in 2 fazes (one now, and one in 5 years), and then make the middle class cuts permanent But they did not.

    They cut taxes for the the top so much that they had to have a way to pay for them, or it would have been a HUGE increase to the debt. MUCH bigger than it is now. But the plan is to allow the small cuts for the middle class as a sales tactic, then in 6 years, we SLAM them with a huge increase by taking away their cut, AND keeping their deductions. Hell, most Americans will see a tax increase this year alone because of the removal of those breaks used almost solely by the middle class.

    This is a carbon copy of the Reagan tax cuts of 81, and please remember, in 82, 84, and 87 Reagan actually increased taxes on the middle class to pay for the cuts he gave to the top. In this one, the right was smart enough to just build this increases into the plan so they don’t have to go back.

    So I have one simple question for you: The right is selling this with “if we give corporations a tax break, they will have money to hire people, which will give them job, an they will spend that money to create more jobs.” SOOOOOO.........why not give the middle class that money via tax breaks, and then they would have that money to spend, which would creat those jobs? WHY does the money have to go thru a corporation first, to create that job? We already have emperical evidence that this plan doesn’t work......
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2017
  14. Turin

    Turin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Funny. Considering that This is exactly what Paul Ryan has said he's going to do this week.
     
  15. Fenton Lum

    Fenton Lum Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are the purveyor of arms and violence to the world, including the internationally illegal cluster bombs known to have a 90% collateral casualty rate in the field. We provided those to the Wahabist Saudi's until last year for them to rain down on Yemen. We also sold nuclear reactors to NK a mere two years before we placed them on an "axis of evil" list in an utterly bipartisan plan that wound up with NK's reactors being sold from a company Rumsfeld had once sat on the board of directors of, and as it turns out, you, as an american tax payer, helped pay for them. Cheers.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2017
    bendog likes this.
  16. bendog

    bendog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are the weapons purveyor to the world, but there's a reason we sell light water nuclear reactors.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...n_i_interest_you_in_a_lightwater_reactor.html

    nice to see you, btw
     
  17. Fenton Lum

    Fenton Lum Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
  18. bendog

    bendog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    585
    Trophy Points:
    113
  19. Fenton Lum

    Fenton Lum Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There it is, we'll take whatever ya'll got and charge our people for the military adventure that secures it for the Wall Street/ donor/"job creator" class.
     
  20. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But you used it anyway setting the Precedent!
    Paid for it... with debt!?! You guys are so proud of Stimulus and Cash for Clunkers that now you want that silly spending counted in Bush's column? Bahahahahah!

    ‘Evil’ Tax Cuts? Nope, It’s Blue-State Panic.

    Thank goodness for people like Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Brown, the New York Times editorial board, and other blue-state stalwarts, whose No. 1 concern is to fight this pernicious money grab by a sinister, well-organized, and garishly wealthy elite! But hark, New York Times: What have we here? Why, it’s an analysis from your own news pages, dated December 5, with a doozy of a headline: “Among the Tax Bill’s Biggest Losers: High-Income, Blue State Taxpayers.”

    Well, this is certainly awkward.

    Let’s read on: “While the Republican tax overhaul would add up to an overall tax cut for individual taxpayers, at least through 2025, millions of wealthy could still immediately receive a tax increase,” notes the report.

    Interesting! Who might those people be?

    “For many, particularly those in wealthy Democratic areas who earn $200,000 or more, the increase would come from the repeal of the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT.”

    If you know anything about California, you likely now know why good old Governor Moonbeam is freaking out. California may be filled with natural wonders, but it’s also a Democratic area chock full of wealthy people who earn $200,000 or more — and it’s also known for high state-level income taxes, with a top marginal rate of 13.3 percent. In the bad old days, Californians could count on simply deducting this highway robbery from their federal taxable income, masking the state’s shenanigans and blunting the financial pain. The GOP tax bill yanks what is essentially a federal subsidy away, forcing wealthy blue-state residents to face the reality of their local high-tax, high-spending regimes.

    They’re only being asked to pay their fair share!
     
    freakonature likes this.
  21. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can thank Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton for North Korea’s nukes

    Thanks for bringing that up.
     
  22. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club. - Dave Barry
     
  23. freakonature

    freakonature Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    10,885
    Likes Received:
    1,408
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did he say he was going to continue to enslave the labor of the youth to pay for the failure generation's retirement, or did he say we would have to look at the organized theft of SS?
     
  24. Draco

    Draco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    11,096
    Likes Received:
    3,393
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Isn't there another thread on this forum from Democrats that are saying "Trumps tax plan is all for the rich!!!" Are these not diametrically opposed ideals?

    Why should we listen to these people who contradict themselves sentence after sentence?
     
  25. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Top 1% effective tax rate
    1985 19.1%
    2008 20.4%

    Which would make them amongst the highest earners in America. What's your gripe?

    I think you have been sold a bill of goods by the MSM and the jealous and envious.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2017

Share This Page