Bosses pocket Trump Tax Windfall

More tribal nonsense.

That's all you got? Sarcasm?

Sarcasm never has been and never is appropriate rebuttal in a Debate Forum.

Duhhhhhhhhhh ....

 

Oh, cut the BS - will you?!?

The guy is lowering mostly upper-income taxes because he is already seeking funding for his next election.

Heaven forbid - let us all pray ...

 

What’s more important to prolong life span is that you take personal responsibility for your health. Eat well, exercise, don’t smoke etc

 

They did slow the rate of growth of the debt.

Because the military is important too

They did take into account the next recession when they cut taxes. Cutting taxes helps avoid a recession by creating a stronger economy

They do pay for themselves...obviously look at the booming tax revenues.

The gop has been trying to cut spending with entitlement reform since they took the House, they could not Get Dems on board.

Which was necessary

 

Yeah, not smoking crack, not shooting up, putting down the cigarettes, not eating till you're a giant fat pig, not eating processed crap, getting some regular exercise.

 

In other words: I got mine, screw the rest of the country and future generations. The perfect description of Trump fan's American "loving" attitude.

 

1) LOL! The deficit exploded from $500 billion under Obama to a likely +$1 trillion. Color me surprised when I don't believe your rosy income tax savings numbers?

2) I get it, GOP pet spending is more important than the deficit. It is only spending for the poor and sick they are enraged about.

3) No, they didn't. The $1.5 trillion deficit prediction necessary to pass the reconciliation loophole didn't take into account a future downturn. Second, tax cuts tend to accelerate the next downturn and make it deeper, because they catalyze reckless consumer debt by making people FEEL prosperous when they aren't.

4) An obvious falsehood.

5) "TRYING" to cut spending? LOL! But, I already knew that it was the Dems fault.

6) Thanks for confirming that it is necessary for the GOP to lie about tax cuts paying for themselves to sell the con job to the uninformed voters (their base).

 

Health care expenditure comparison by country (from here):


Why should Canada have half-the-cost of the US for healthcare services? Because it is a National Service!

You know, like the FBI? Yeah, right - now tell me that the FBI is more important to your well-being than a National Healthcare Service ...

 

I have another reason.

When taxation is lowered on the very-rich, the money does NOT GO BACK INTO THE ECONOMY.

Your tax dollars are paying for a lot of things, but mostly the DoD. Unless you work for the DoD or a supplier to the DoD, how is that better for you?

The revenue is sitting up there in some mega-wealthy account ON LOAN earning interest! And, the juicy returns will more than likely go to someone in the family when that person dies. Who will also let it sit in an account ON LOAN - and living off the interest!

How is that better than taxing it and spending the revenue on a low-cost National Health Service?

Methinks it is ...

PS: Who needs to make and keep that much money? Who? For what reason?
PPS: And no, the answer "Well, it has always been that way!" is JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

 

You mean lowered taxes for those that pay taxes, like all taxpayers.

 

Good point, I made the same point many times. For the wealthy, preservation of wealth is the main objective, not generating new wealth. Thus, giving tax cuts to the wealthy is expected to be bad for the economy, because they preserve the status quo instead of innovating and creating new stuff..

 

Yes, but, frankly, that's a "given". One cannot expect that of all individuals. So, what's a country to do. Remain with the highest cost healthcare on earth?

That is, given the fact that people do or do not take care of themselves, is not a Public National Health-service worth the money it costs? (Given that the National Discretionary Budget is already wasting half of its funds on the DoD when there is no war in site worth the $600B a year that it costs?)

And, if I have quoted lifespan data that demonstrates clearly in those countries with a National Healthcare Service PEOPLE DO LIVE LONGER, then the point is proven: National Healthcare is well worth the effort and investment necessary ...

 

Tax and spend liberals HATE the idea of people and corporations keeping more of their earnings.

It is driven 100% by control and power.

 

Your forgetting one majorly important factor.

Government tax gross receipts.

Our country doesnt have a tax problem, it has a spending problem. Trying to solve debt and deficit by earning more is like a person with a gambling problem trying to afford their addiction by getting a fourth full time job.

There was a point in time were we didnt have any income tax, and yet we still paid for railroads, schools, defense, and most other obligations the fed is responsible for.

 

No, because if people aren't gonna take care of themselves, they are gonna die...regardless of who pays their doctors and nurses.

National Healthcare is something worth discussing...but it certainly isn't going to make people take better care of themselves.

 

Jesus!

Trumps tax cuts lowered taxes for ALL people who paid taxes, not just upper income taxpayers.

Are you just pissed because the "earned" income credit (welfare) for lower income people who pay NO taxes wasn't increased?

 

Perhaps you need an explanation that you might just understand.

From the public domain...

Tax Cuts Explained In Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that’s right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That’s true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and politicians, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible …

(Postscript — The "author" of the above story says he wasn’t the author at all and has no opinion on the merits if the tax parable. The question, however remains — do any posters — especially my liberal ones — have any coherent rebuttal?)

 

You mean the rest of the country who pays NO taxes anyway?

Perhaps there should be a cut in their EIC (welfare) because they are not contributing much at all to the economy would be in order.

 

In other words, I want to take what's yours and make it mine, screw you.

The attitude of sanctimonious Leftists who think they are virtuous and altruistic taking the food off of other people's tables...

 

Glad to hear it.

Working Americans deserve to keep more of the money they earn.

 

I work and don't want any of what you have, thank you very much. Unlike you, however, I do not mind contributing taxes to a civilized society, from which I and my children benefit.

 

P.S.: Nobody is taking food off anyone's table, the rich (that includes me, BTW, I am in the top 10% net worth) have no problem with food. Not getting a tax break to buy a second yacht, though, might be really tough on them.

 

Well put, and unfortunately very true;

I therefore argue that the accumulation of capital that happens because of aberrantly low upper-income taxation IS OF NO USE TO THE COUNTRY AND ITS CITIZENS AS A WHOLE. It simply fosters a class of individuals who try to assure that NOTHING CHANGES and they can leave the money to those that they wish as inheritors.

The consequence of which is simply to promote more riches - which, of course, serves their purpose.

Whilst 14% of the American population lives below the Poverty Threshold. And, no!, I am not suggesting that they should be subsidized by the government. I am saying, however, that the additional monies (obtained by reducing the DoD budget AND instituting much-higher upper-income taxation) should go to educating our people out-of-poverty and a national healthcare system ... !

 

Tax-cuts for the already far-too-rich is awesome unfairness. We all knew before the election that he was unfair and obsessively narcissistic, and now we know for sure.

Vote him back into office? Absurd notion ... ?

 

I don't care if you work or not. To quote a more articulate man than I, there is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it.

Dismount. Climbing up on your high horse and lying about other people doesn't make you a moral, virtuous and altruistic person, either. It makes you something quite the opposite, actually.

For the record, I have no reason to mind fulfilling my civic duties and I don't mind that some of my taxes go to help feed the truly needy. Furthermore, unlike the vast majority of the sanctimonious "progressive" poseurs who think there's something virtuous and altruistic about depriving working men and women of more of the money have earned and need to fulfill their primary duties as a responsible citizen - supporting themselves and their families so that they don't become a burden on their fellow citizens now or in the future - I freely and gladly give to charity.