How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

[usmbguest5318]

Middle class taxes will be raised.. some now some later..
But you have to lie about it because you trust the guvment.

Middle class taxes will be raised..

What income range is middle class?

What income range is middle class?

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)? If you don't, well, you just don't; that is what it is. But if you don't, why are you participating declaratively in this thread?

• Household Income Quintiles and the Top 5% | Outside the Neatline
  
• Household income in the U.S. - shares of quintiles | Timeline
  
• Household Income: HINC-05

How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

You don't.
But when the media lies, nonstop, saying the tax cut will raise middle class taxes, people believed them.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

The numbers look bleaker a decade out for most American households. To help ensure their bill met the budget limits Republicans had set for themselves, lawmakers set many individual income tax changes to sunset after 2025 (however, they made cuts to corporate tax rates permanent).

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

Look at them widening the gap between the rich and poor.

Thanks for the link. And for proving the media was lying about the bill hiking taxes on the middle class.

View attachment 167049
As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027,

ZZZ.......sorry, I fell asleep after 2027. DERP!

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income? One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact, showing it without regard to other factors which, for any individual other than themselves, are unpredictable enough to be validly extrapolated for use in a macroeconomic-level discussion such as this thread.

That said, were I in whatever one deems "middle class," I would be very annoyed upon seeing, be it in the TPC's or JCT's analysis, that the gains accruing to me be proportionally lower than those accruing to folks who already have "a ton" of money. (In almost every U.S. locality, members of households having $500K+/year in income are one-percenters.)

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)?

Seriously. When some liberal is whining about the middle class, I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income?

I do!

One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over. And that's not my chart, it was in a link provided by the other poster.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced. (You don't think I posted everything that's here relevant and also contained in those documents, do you? I didn't, and when I post links, one can be sure I have not. I didn't/don't and won't ever do so because I provide(-d) links to them.)

Additionally, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) research which you insisted I examine, like the JTC's research that I referenced earlier, asserts that the JTCA will ultimately amount to being a tax hike.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....That is what you've been "on about" even though the topic isn't, as I made clear not in the OP and title, but also that I reiterated to you in post 14.

Besides trying to derail this thread, you have followed Procrustes' bad example so comprehensively that, if I'm to refrain from accusing you of utter villainy, I must infer that like the JCT reports to which I linked, you didn't read the TPC's report to which the other member linked. When will you endeavor to invest more effort in informing yourself than it takes to look at and read more than just the pictures?​

[Xelor wrote:] The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

[Toddsterpatriot wrote:] Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

They don't materially disagree with the JCT, so why would I do that? In the opening paragraph of TPC's full report (dated December 18t, 2017) on the distributional effects of the JTCA, the report from which the data in the chart the other member obtained from the NPR website, is found the following statement.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025,and 53 percent in 2027.

Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

The JTCA is an "on the sly" tax increase, and everyone except Trump, GOP partisan sycophants, and myopic know-not-nearly-enoughs, who, like you, don't do more than make invalid inferences from cherry-picked pictures, know it! Even the GOP members of Congress know it; however, for purely temporal political expediency they chose to pass a major bill that's bad rather than take the time to craft a major tax bill that (1) revenue neutral (by which I here mean doesn't increase the deficit any more than it otherwise would increase), (2) is distributionally equitable to middle and lower income groups, and (3) that lowers corporate marginal tax rates. something which could have been done paid for largely via a mix of eliminating corporate loopholes and eliminating high-income individuals' loopholes.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

Be sure to tell whiny liberals to specify that in their next whine.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced.

I didn't see mention of pay hikes in those links. Or that a certain rate of inflation turns the cut into a hike.

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....

Only because the media keeps saying it will hike taxes on the middle class.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025.....Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

5% paying more isn't what the media has been claiming.

You've been trying to derail this thread

Only because the media keeps saying it will hike taxes on the middle class.

5% paying more isn't what the media has been claiming.

Let me inform you: I AM NOT "THE MEDIA."

Go derail "the media's" thread(s), not mine! If necessary, post on their websites, or tweet about their reporting.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

Middle class taxes will be raised.. some now some later..
But you have to lie about it because you trust the guvment.

Middle class taxes will be raised..

What income range is middle class?

What income range is middle class?

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)? If you don't, well, you just don't; that is what it is. But if you don't, why are you participating declaratively in this thread?

• Household Income Quintiles and the Top 5% | Outside the Neatline
  
• Household income in the U.S. - shares of quintiles | Timeline
  
• Household Income: HINC-05

How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

You don't.
But when the media lies, nonstop, saying the tax cut will raise middle class taxes, people believed them.

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

The numbers look bleaker a decade out for most American households. To help ensure their bill met the budget limits Republicans had set for themselves, lawmakers set many individual income tax changes to sunset after 2025 (however, they made cuts to corporate tax rates permanent).

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

Look at them widening the gap between the rich and poor.

Thanks for the link. And for proving the media was lying about the bill hiking taxes on the middle class.

View attachment 167049
As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027,

ZZZ.......sorry, I fell asleep after 2027. DERP!

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income? One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact, showing it without regard to other factors which, for any individual other than themselves, are unpredictable enough to be validly extrapolated for use in a macroeconomic-level discussion such as this thread.

That said, were I in whatever one deems "middle class," I would be very annoyed upon seeing, be it in the TPC's or JCT's analysis, that the gains accruing to me be proportionally lower than those accruing to folks who already have "a ton" of money. (In almost every U.S. locality, members of households having $500K+/year in income are one-percenters.)

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)?

Seriously. When some liberal is whining about the middle class, I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income?

I do!

One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over. And that's not my chart, it was in a link provided by the other poster.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced. (You don't think I posted everything that's here relevant and also contained in those documents, do you? I didn't, and when I post links, one can be sure I have not. I didn't/don't and won't ever do so because I provide(-d) links to them.)

Additionally, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) research which you insisted I examine, like the JTC's research that I referenced earlier, asserts that the JTCA will ultimately amount to being a tax hike.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....That is what you've been "on about" even though the topic isn't, as I made clear not in the OP and title, but also that I reiterated to you in post 14.

Besides trying to derail this thread, you have followed Procrustes' bad example so comprehensively that, if I'm to refrain from accusing you of utter villainy, I must infer that like the JCT reports to which I linked, you didn't read the TPC's report to which the other member linked. When will you endeavor to invest more effort in informing yourself than it takes to look at and read more than just the pictures?​

[Xelor wrote:] The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

[Toddsterpatriot wrote:] Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

They don't materially disagree with the JCT, so why would I do that? In the opening paragraph of TPC's full report (dated December 18t, 2017) on the distributional effects of the JTCA, the report from which the data in the chart the other member obtained from the NPR website, is found the following statement.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025,and 53 percent in 2027.

Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

The JTCA is an "on the sly" tax increase, and everyone except Trump, GOP partisan sycophants, and myopic know-not-nearly-enoughs, who, like you, don't do more than make invalid inferences from cherry-picked pictures, know it! Even the GOP members of Congress know it; however, for purely temporal political expediency they chose to pass a major bill that's bad rather than take the time to craft a major tax bill that (1) revenue neutral (by which I here mean doesn't increase the deficit any more than it otherwise would increase), (2) is distributionally equitable to middle and lower income groups, and (3) that lowers corporate marginal tax rates. something which could have been done paid for largely via a mix of eliminating corporate loopholes and eliminating high-income individuals' loopholes.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

Be sure to tell whiny liberals to specify that in their next whine.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced.

I didn't see mention of pay hikes in those links. Or that a certain rate of inflation turns the cut into a hike.

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....

Only because the media keeps saying it will hike taxes on the middle class.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025.....Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

5% paying more isn't what the media has been claiming.

[Xelor wrote:] I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced.

[Todd wrote:] I didn't see mention of pay hikes in those links. Or that a certain rate of inflation turns the cut into a hike.

[Citing Xelor, Todd inaptly edited Xelor's statement as follows:] Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025.....Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

[Todd wrote:] 5% paying more isn't what the media has been claiming.

Seriously? You really meant to respond to me as obtusely and disingenuously as you have with those two remarks?

BTW, don't bother answering. You can ask others here what happens when one does that with me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

President Reagan and Congressional Republicans discovered that broad tax cuts may appeal to working-class voters even if richer constituents reap most of the rewards. The key GOP move was to keep tax-cut promises sweepingly general. If voters are given a choice between tax cuts and spending on specific programs, they choose to maintain or increase spending. When they are given a choice between tax cuts and lower deficit levels, they choose lower deficits. It's a different matter, however, if no one mentions the need to cut specific programs or the possibility of higher deficits. In that case, voters assume that tax cuts will be paid for by cuts in “government waste.” This is the centerpiece of the Republican tax cut strategy. 1980s Republicans had few moral qualms about promising tax cuts without mentioning the specific programs that might have to be cut. They saw this approach as the strategic analogue to years of Democratic promises to increase spending without detailing how to pay for new or expanded programs.

Republicans could also take advantage of the general unpopularity of major kinds of U.S. taxes. In contrast to many other advanced industrial democracies, the United States relies heavily on highly visible taxes – property taxes at the local level and the income tax at the national level. As middle-class market incomes stagnated during the economic crisis, reductions in highly visible taxes became a popular way to boost family budgets.

Republican fealty to tax-cut politics was set in cement soon after Reagan left office. In his first term, successor Republican President George H. W. Bush wanted to address rising deficits and broke a pledge never to raise taxes. This was not so different from what Reagan himself did when he accepted tax increases in 1982. But when Bush was not reelected, modern-day Republicans drew an iron-clad lesson: tax cuts are the road to electoral success and tax increases spell defeat at the polls. Republicans also began to realize that deficits could be financed with foreign capital, and that voters did not punish politicians for big deficits. Their strategy became unshakable.

With that past as the prologue to current GOP tax cut bill, what does the GOP manage to do? Pen and pass a tax cut that most Americans don't want!

Seriously!?! Just what kind of f*ck-up must one be to propose tax cuts and not be able to convince a majority of the polity that the tax cut is good enough for them to support it? Of all the things legislators and government executives might do, cutting taxes has traditionally been the most popular thing available to choose from their "basket of goodies."

• A few weeks back: The GOP Tax Cuts Are Even More Unpopular Than Past Tax Hikes
  
• Six days ago: Poll: Majority oppose GOP tax bill
• Four hours ago: Republican Tax Bill Has Grown More Unpopular, Poll Shows

I'm sorry, but how "bat sh*t stupid" must Congressional Republicans be to (1) craft an unpopular tax cut and (2) not materially change it so that it is popular?

​

Might it be unpopular because it's been billed as something it's not, say as "the biggest tax cut in history?"

• The Biggest Tax Cut in History? Not Even Close

That probably has something to do with it though it's also quite likely that voters know that at their peril will they trust in a damn thing the GOP, and Trump in particular, says.

Might it be unpopular because it's been billed as something it's not, say as "the biggest tax cut in history?"

It could be unpopular because people keep hearing it will make their taxes go up (unless they're rich), not that it will only make 5% pay more taxes.

 

[Dragonlady]

That may be, it's still not a tax hike on the middle class.

Again, this indicates that you do not understand economics.

And you're supposed to be coloring. pst...

it's still not a tax hike on the middle class.


Again, this indicates that you do not understand economics.

View attachment 166910

DERP!

it's still not a tax hike on the middle class.

Whether the bill invokes a tax hike, or not, is not the point. The point of this thread is exactly what's stated in the OP. the unpopularity of the tax bill composed and proponed and the Congress' and POTUS' determination to yet sign the damn thing.

Whether the bill invokes a tax hike, or not, is not the point.

The point is the media lying, saying it's a hike for the middle class when it's actually a cut for the middle class.

the unpopularity of the tax bill composed and proponed and the Congress' and POTUS' determination to yet sign the damn thing.

Why is it unpopular?

Only an idiot cuts taxes when you’re running a deficit.

Under Obama, the uncontrolled deficit and increases to the national debt were the greatest fiscal crises of the past 50 years, according to the Republican Party.

Under Trump, the deficit and the national debt are of no concern.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That may be, it's still not a tax hike on the middle class.

Again, this indicates that you do not understand economics.

And you're supposed to be coloring. pst...

it's still not a tax hike on the middle class.


Again, this indicates that you do not understand economics.

View attachment 166910

DERP!

it's still not a tax hike on the middle class.

Whether the bill invokes a tax hike, or not, is not the point. The point of this thread is exactly what's stated in the OP. the unpopularity of the tax bill composed and proponed and the Congress' and POTUS' determination to yet sign the damn thing.

Whether the bill invokes a tax hike, or not, is not the point.

The point is the media lying, saying it's a hike for the middle class when it's actually a cut for the middle class.

the unpopularity of the tax bill composed and proponed and the Congress' and POTUS' determination to yet sign the damn thing.

Why is it unpopular?

Only an idiot cuts taxes when you’re running a deficit.

Under Obama, the uncontrolled deficit and increases to the national debt were the greatest fiscal crises of the past 50 years, according to the Republican Party.

Under Trump, the deficit and the national debt are of no concern.

Only an idiot cuts taxes when you’re running a deficit.

Democrats should definitely run in 2018 and 2020 on a promise to raise taxes until the deficit is gone.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Middle class taxes will be raised..

What income range is middle class?

What income range is middle class?

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)? If you don't, well, you just don't; that is what it is. But if you don't, why are you participating declaratively in this thread?

• Household Income Quintiles and the Top 5% | Outside the Neatline
  
• Household income in the U.S. - shares of quintiles | Timeline
  
• Household Income: HINC-05

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

The numbers look bleaker a decade out for most American households. To help ensure their bill met the budget limits Republicans had set for themselves, lawmakers set many individual income tax changes to sunset after 2025 (however, they made cuts to corporate tax rates permanent).

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

Look at them widening the gap between the rich and poor.

Thanks for the link. And for proving the media was lying about the bill hiking taxes on the middle class.

View attachment 167049
As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027,

ZZZ.......sorry, I fell asleep after 2027. DERP!

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income? One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact, showing it without regard to other factors which, for any individual other than themselves, are unpredictable enough to be validly extrapolated for use in a macroeconomic-level discussion such as this thread.

That said, were I in whatever one deems "middle class," I would be very annoyed upon seeing, be it in the TPC's or JCT's analysis, that the gains accruing to me be proportionally lower than those accruing to folks who already have "a ton" of money. (In almost every U.S. locality, members of households having $500K+/year in income are one-percenters.)

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)?

Seriously. When some liberal is whining about the middle class, I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income?

I do!

One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over. And that's not my chart, it was in a link provided by the other poster.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced. (You don't think I posted everything that's here relevant and also contained in those documents, do you? I didn't, and when I post links, one can be sure I have not. I didn't/don't and won't ever do so because I provide(-d) links to them.)

Additionally, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) research which you insisted I examine, like the JTC's research that I referenced earlier, asserts that the JTCA will ultimately amount to being a tax hike.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....That is what you've been "on about" even though the topic isn't, as I made clear not in the OP and title, but also that I reiterated to you in post 14.

Besides trying to derail this thread, you have followed Procrustes' bad example so comprehensively that, if I'm to refrain from accusing you of utter villainy, I must infer that like the JCT reports to which I linked, you didn't read the TPC's report to which the other member linked. When will you endeavor to invest more effort in informing yourself than it takes to look at and read more than just the pictures?​

[Xelor wrote:] The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

[Toddsterpatriot wrote:] Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

They don't materially disagree with the JCT, so why would I do that? In the opening paragraph of TPC's full report (dated December 18t, 2017) on the distributional effects of the JTCA, the report from which the data in the chart the other member obtained from the NPR website, is found the following statement.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025,and 53 percent in 2027.

Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

The JTCA is an "on the sly" tax increase, and everyone except Trump, GOP partisan sycophants, and myopic know-not-nearly-enoughs, who, like you, don't do more than make invalid inferences from cherry-picked pictures, know it! Even the GOP members of Congress know it; however, for purely temporal political expediency they chose to pass a major bill that's bad rather than take the time to craft a major tax bill that (1) revenue neutral (by which I here mean doesn't increase the deficit any more than it otherwise would increase), (2) is distributionally equitable to middle and lower income groups, and (3) that lowers corporate marginal tax rates. something which could have been done paid for largely via a mix of eliminating corporate loopholes and eliminating high-income individuals' loopholes.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

Be sure to tell whiny liberals to specify that in their next whine.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced.

I didn't see mention of pay hikes in those links. Or that a certain rate of inflation turns the cut into a hike.

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....

Only because the media keeps saying it will hike taxes on the middle class.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025.....Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

5% paying more isn't what the media has been claiming.

[Xelor wrote:] I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced.

[Todd wrote:] I didn't see mention of pay hikes in those links. Or that a certain rate of inflation turns the cut into a hike.

[Citing Xelor, Todd inaptly edited Xelor's statement as follows:] Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025.....Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

[Todd wrote:] 5% paying more isn't what the media has been claiming.

Seriously? You really meant to respond to me as obtusely and disingenuously as you have with those two remarks?

BTW, don't bother answering. You can ask others here what happens when one does that with me.

I don't know if he's being obtuse and disingenuous or just not understanding his own argument. Either way it appears to be a trend.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Seriously? You really meant to respond to me as obtusely and disingenuously as you have with those two remarks?

BTW, don't bother answering. You can ask others here what happens when one does that with me.

I don't know if he's being obtuse and disingenuous or just not understanding his own argument. Either way it appears to be a trend.

OT:

I don't know if he's being obtuse and disingenuous or just not understanding his own argument. Either way it appears to be a trend.

Truth be told, I was near the limit of my suffering him early in the thread when I subtly implored him to address the thread topic and he refused to be courteous enough to do so, to say nothing of his willfully having been thus discourteous to begin with because, per him, of what "the media" do/say.

I don't know if he's being obtuse and disingenuous or just not understanding his own argument. Either way it appears to be a trend.

Be that as it may, it doesn't matter which it be for I have enough self-respect and respect for others that neither will I "give" that to them nor will I tolerate complete strangers "throwing shade" that way when they engage with me. Were he and I conversing face-to-face, I'd simply have walked away and let him talk to whomever will forebear his churlishly procrustean intransigence and willful misrepresentation of their remarks.

FWIW, I don't know either, but in light of the discursive lack of integrity he's shown toward me, I don't care which it is. He's burnt the "benefit of the doubt bridge" that, were it still standing, would have allowed caring-which-it-be to find its way to me.​

 

[Natural Citizen]

FWIW, I don't know either, but in light of the discursive lack of integrity he's shown toward me, I don't care which it is. He's burnt the "benefit of the doubt bridge" that, were it still standing, would have allowed caring-which-it-be to find its way to me.​

People like that, though low-value in material and dialogue, tend to confuse reality. Combined with pride, the problem is compounded. That's the issue in places like this where you're dealing with the gp. The flip-side of that is that we do have genuinely concerned people who really just don't understand economics. Or government for that matter. And that's okay.

Our job is to clean up after the former for the benefit of the latter as well as that of the casual passer-by. That's all that is important. Lead or be led, I always say.

 

[usmbguest5318]

FWIW, I don't know either, but in light of the discursive lack of integrity he's shown toward me, I don't care which it is. He's burnt the "benefit of the doubt bridge" that, were it still standing, would have allowed caring-which-it-be to find its way to me.​

People like that, though low-value in material and dialogue, tend to confuse reality. Combined with pride, the problem is compounded. That's the issue in places like this where you're dealing with the gp. The flip-side of that is that we do have genuinely concerned people who really just don't understand economics. Or government for that matter. And that's okay.

Our job is to clean up after the former for the benefit of the latter as well as that of the casual passer-by. That's all that is important. Lead or be led, I always say.

OT:

People like that, though low-value in material and dialogue, tend to confuse reality.

Confuse whose reality?

Our job is to clean up after the former for the benefit of the latter as well as that of the casual passer-by.

You and I clearly have differing raisons d'etre for participating in discussions here.

Lead or be led, I always say.

I agree with you.​

 

[Clementine]

Government needs to stop spending on unnecessary things if we want the deficit to come down. Us middle class folks who file joint returns have been hit pretty hard with taxes, roughly $12,000 a year. That is simply too much. And much of it is due to the billions we send overseas and the cost of housing, feeding and educating millions of illegal aliens. The illegals also receive huge tax refunds each year by claiming a lot of children. The IRS sends the checks and asks questions later.

We need to reduce the size and power of government, keep spending down by only funding necessary things, which does include assisting the poor. However, we need to make more of an effort to actually help those people by continuing aid until they have completed some education and job training so they can become more self-sufficient.

We do not need to be paying to build mosques in other countries, giving aid to dictators who never use it to help their own citizens, spending billions each year to fund illegal aliens and a host of other wasteful expenses.

And those wealthy liberals in Hollywood and around the country are not required to save money on taxes. They can write big checks as a gift and send them to the IRS. Any millionaire who claims to support high taxes on the wealthy had damn well better put their money where their mouths are or it will be clear that they are full of shit. Dems especially are incredibly generous with other peoples' money while studies show they are stingy with their own money.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Confuse whose reality?

It goes back to your ant theory. You know what I mean by that I suppose. If something is stated enough, like Toddster's falsehoods here, and nobody challenges the argument, it becomes reality to those who do not know otherwise. And ultimately dogs will walk right into the collar of their own leash if repeated enough.

You and I clearly have differing raisons d'etre for participating in discussions here.

Likely. I thought that afterward, but it does not negate what I said. For me anyhow.

My time here will be short, however, unless I realize useful benefit otherwise.

I agree with you.

Yeah. I assumed so. You know, speaking of leading verus being led, there was a great quote I read some place. Diana Slattery. What Diana said was that "Reality, it seems, is multiple, and tightly coupled to perception." It was a good quote.

Alright. It's late. Peace out.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Confuse whose reality?

It goes back to your ant theory. You know what I mean by that I suppose. If something is stated enough, like Toddster's falsehoods here, it becomes reality to those who do not know otherwise. And ultimately dogs will will walk right into the collar of their own leash if repeated enough.

You and I clearly have differing raisons d'etre for participating in discussions here.

Likely. I thought that afterward, but it does not negate what I said.

My time here will be short, however, unless I realize useful benefit otherwise.

I agree with you.

Yeah. I assumed so. You know, speaking of leading verus being led, there was a great quote Ireas some place. Diana Slattery. What Diana said was that "Reality, it seems, is multiple, and tightly coupled to perception." It ws a good quote.

Alright. It's late. Peace out.

It goes back to your ant theory. You know what I mean by that I suppose. If something is stated enough, like Toddster's falsehoods here, it becomes reality to those who do not know otherwise.

Yes. That's called "argumentum ad nauseam." I suppose that it works with folks who don't know any better. Lord knows it's an often used approach.

It goes back to your ant theory. You know what I mean by that I suppose....

I'm not sure if I do or don't. I'm sure I've not developed an ant theory. The "dog" thing to which you allude is, I believe, the Pavlovian approach to inculcation and behavioral control; however it requires not only repetition of one or more demands that are clearly understood by the "dog," but also consistently providing desirable and desired-at-the-time rewards. In general, the Pavlovian approach doesn't work very well on adult humans. That said, being that there are some seven billion humans, there are almost certainly some millions of humans having persistently scarred and scabbed knuckles on whom it works quite well.

 

[Nia88]

But when the media lies, nonstop, saying the tax cut will raise middle class taxes, people believed them.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Respectfully.

I know the media lied. I know the tax bill is not increasing taxes on the middle class.

How do you know it doesn't? Because Trump said so?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

How does one propose a tax cut that is unpopular?

You don't.
But when the media lies, nonstop, saying the tax cut will raise middle class taxes, people believed them.

Middle class taxes will be raised.. some now some later..
But you have to lie about it because you trust the guvment.

Middle class taxes will be raised..

What income range is middle class?

If you are not paying income taxes, you are not middle class.
If you are paying income taxes, you are middle class.
If you are living off of your investment income, you are wealthy.

 

[sealybobo]

Middle class taxes will be raised..

What income range is middle class?

What income range is middle class?

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)? If you don't, well, you just don't; that is what it is. But if you don't, why are you participating declaratively in this thread?

• Household Income Quintiles and the Top 5% | Outside the Neatline
  
• Household income in the U.S. - shares of quintiles | Timeline
  
• Household Income: HINC-05

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

The numbers look bleaker a decade out for most American households. To help ensure their bill met the budget limits Republicans had set for themselves, lawmakers set many individual income tax changes to sunset after 2025 (however, they made cuts to corporate tax rates permanent).

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump.

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000 — earning household would have a tax bill that is $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

Look at them widening the gap between the rich and poor.

Thanks for the link. And for proving the media was lying about the bill hiking taxes on the middle class.

View attachment 167049
As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027,

ZZZ.......sorry, I fell asleep after 2027. DERP!

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income? One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact, showing it without regard to other factors which, for any individual other than themselves, are unpredictable enough to be validly extrapolated for use in a macroeconomic-level discussion such as this thread.

That said, were I in whatever one deems "middle class," I would be very annoyed upon seeing, be it in the TPC's or JCT's analysis, that the gains accruing to me be proportionally lower than those accruing to folks who already have "a ton" of money. (In almost every U.S. locality, members of households having $500K+/year in income are one-percenters.)

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)?

Seriously. When some liberal is whining about the middle class, I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income?

I do!

One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over. And that's not my chart, it was in a link provided by the other poster.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced. (You don't think I posted everything that's here relevant and also contained in those documents, do you? I didn't, and when I post links, one can be sure I have not. I didn't/don't and won't ever do so because I provide(-d) links to them.)

Additionally, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) research which you insisted I examine, like the JTC's research that I referenced earlier, asserts that the JTCA will ultimately amount to being a tax hike.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....That is what you've been "on about" even though the topic isn't, as I made clear not in the OP and title, but also that I reiterated to you in post 14.

Besides trying to derail this thread, you have followed Procrustes' bad example so comprehensively that, if I'm to refrain from accusing you of utter villainy, I must infer that like the JCT reports to which I linked, you didn't read the TPC's report to which the other member linked. When will you endeavor to invest more effort in informing yourself than it takes to look at and read more than just the pictures?​

[Xelor wrote:] The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

[Toddsterpatriot wrote:] Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

They don't materially disagree with the JCT, so why would I do that? In the opening paragraph of TPC's full report (dated December 18t, 2017) on the distributional effects of the JTCA, the report from which the data in the chart the other member obtained from the NPR website, is found the following statement.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025,and 53 percent in 2027.

Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

The JTCA is an "on the sly" tax increase, and everyone except Trump, GOP partisan sycophants, and myopic know-not-nearly-enoughs, who, like you, don't do more than make invalid inferences from cherry-picked pictures, know it! Even the GOP members of Congress know it; however, for purely temporal political expediency they chose to pass a major bill that's bad rather than take the time to craft a major tax bill that (1) revenue neutral (by which I here mean doesn't increase the deficit any more than it otherwise would increase), (2) is distributionally equitable to middle and lower income groups, and (3) that lowers corporate marginal tax rates. something which could have been done paid for largely via a mix of eliminating corporate loopholes and eliminating high-income individuals' loopholes.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

Be sure to tell whiny liberals to specify that in their next whine.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced.

I didn't see mention of pay hikes in those links. Or that a certain rate of inflation turns the cut into a hike.

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....

Only because the media keeps saying it will hike taxes on the middle class.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025.....Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

5% paying more isn't what the media has been claiming.

[Xelor wrote:] I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced.

[Todd wrote:] I didn't see mention of pay hikes in those links. Or that a certain rate of inflation turns the cut into a hike.

[Citing Xelor, Todd inaptly edited Xelor's statement as follows:] Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025.....Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

[Todd wrote:] 5% paying more isn't what the media has been claiming.

Seriously? You really meant to respond to me as obtusely and disingenuously as you have with those two remarks?

BTW, don't bother answering. You can ask others here what happens when one does that with me.

Here’s what I know. I’m solidly middle class

$80k plus income

Home paid off. No debt. Only bills are association dues taxes lease and insurances.

Have savings. On track to be able to easily retire by 65.

No kids to have to send to college.

18 more years to save. I’ll be fine.

I got one major problem with republicans. They will cost me social security and Medicare $. No question in my mind cuts are coming. That will further widen the gap between the rich and us

 

[sealybobo]

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)? If you don't, well, you just don't; that is what it is. But if you don't, why are you participating declaratively in this thread?

• Household Income Quintiles and the Top 5% | Outside the Neatline
  
• Household income in the U.S. - shares of quintiles | Timeline
  
• Household Income: HINC-05

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income? One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact, showing it without regard to other factors which, for any individual other than themselves, are unpredictable enough to be validly extrapolated for use in a macroeconomic-level discussion such as this thread.

That said, were I in whatever one deems "middle class," I would be very annoyed upon seeing, be it in the TPC's or JCT's analysis, that the gains accruing to me be proportionally lower than those accruing to folks who already have "a ton" of money. (In almost every U.S. locality, members of households having $500K+/year in income are one-percenters.)

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)?

Seriously. When some liberal is whining about the middle class, I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income?

I do!

One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over. And that's not my chart, it was in a link provided by the other poster.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced. (You don't think I posted everything that's here relevant and also contained in those documents, do you? I didn't, and when I post links, one can be sure I have not. I didn't/don't and won't ever do so because I provide(-d) links to them.)

Additionally, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) research which you insisted I examine, like the JTC's research that I referenced earlier, asserts that the JTCA will ultimately amount to being a tax hike.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....That is what you've been "on about" even though the topic isn't, as I made clear not in the OP and title, but also that I reiterated to you in post 14.

Besides trying to derail this thread, you have followed Procrustes' bad example so comprehensively that, if I'm to refrain from accusing you of utter villainy, I must infer that like the JCT reports to which I linked, you didn't read the TPC's report to which the other member linked. When will you endeavor to invest more effort in informing yourself than it takes to look at and read more than just the pictures?​

[Xelor wrote:] The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

[Toddsterpatriot wrote:] Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

They don't materially disagree with the JCT, so why would I do that? In the opening paragraph of TPC's full report (dated December 18t, 2017) on the distributional effects of the JTCA, the report from which the data in the chart the other member obtained from the NPR website, is found the following statement.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025,and 53 percent in 2027.

Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

The JTCA is an "on the sly" tax increase, and everyone except Trump, GOP partisan sycophants, and myopic know-not-nearly-enoughs, who, like you, don't do more than make invalid inferences from cherry-picked pictures, know it! Even the GOP members of Congress know it; however, for purely temporal political expediency they chose to pass a major bill that's bad rather than take the time to craft a major tax bill that (1) revenue neutral (by which I here mean doesn't increase the deficit any more than it otherwise would increase), (2) is distributionally equitable to middle and lower income groups, and (3) that lowers corporate marginal tax rates. something which could have been done paid for largely via a mix of eliminating corporate loopholes and eliminating high-income individuals' loopholes.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

Be sure to tell whiny liberals to specify that in their next whine.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced.

I didn't see mention of pay hikes in those links. Or that a certain rate of inflation turns the cut into a hike.

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....

Only because the media keeps saying it will hike taxes on the middle class.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025.....Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

5% paying more isn't what the media has been claiming.

[Xelor wrote:] I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced.

[Todd wrote:] I didn't see mention of pay hikes in those links. Or that a certain rate of inflation turns the cut into a hike.

[Citing Xelor, Todd inaptly edited Xelor's statement as follows:] Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025.....Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

[Todd wrote:] 5% paying more isn't what the media has been claiming.

Seriously? You really meant to respond to me as obtusely and disingenuously as you have with those two remarks?

BTW, don't bother answering. You can ask others here what happens when one does that with me.

I don't know if he's being obtuse and disingenuous or just not understanding his own argument. Either way it appears to be a trend.

Republicans have been claiming for years that trickle down works even though it doesn’t. Well we’re going to give it another try and see it doesn’t work. And ultimately will hurt the rest of us.

This is shifting the tax break more into us. Republicans feel the rich pay too much and we don’t pay enough.

I love it how our tax break expires in 8 years but their tax break never expires

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)? If you don't, well, you just don't; that is what it is. But if you don't, why are you participating declaratively in this thread?

• Household Income Quintiles and the Top 5% | Outside the Neatline
  
• Household income in the U.S. - shares of quintiles | Timeline
  
• Household Income: HINC-05

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income? One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact, showing it without regard to other factors which, for any individual other than themselves, are unpredictable enough to be validly extrapolated for use in a macroeconomic-level discussion such as this thread.

That said, were I in whatever one deems "middle class," I would be very annoyed upon seeing, be it in the TPC's or JCT's analysis, that the gains accruing to me be proportionally lower than those accruing to folks who already have "a ton" of money. (In almost every U.S. locality, members of households having $500K+/year in income are one-percenters.)

Seriously? Do you truly not know what income range constitutes middle class (middle income)?

Seriously. When some liberal is whining about the middle class, I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

You do realize, don't you, that changes in after-tax income include the effects of changes to pre-tax income?

I do!

One of those pre-tax effects is simple pay increases, and another is inflation, neither of which appears to be accounted for in the chart you've presented above.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over. And that's not my chart, it was in a link provided by the other poster.

The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

I'm not assuming he means middle quintile.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....present your data and I'll be happy to look it over.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced. (You don't think I posted everything that's here relevant and also contained in those documents, do you? I didn't, and when I post links, one can be sure I have not. I didn't/don't and won't ever do so because I provide(-d) links to them.)

Additionally, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) research which you insisted I examine, like the JTC's research that I referenced earlier, asserts that the JTCA will ultimately amount to being a tax hike.

If you feel a certain pay increase or a certain rate of inflation will turn this tax cut into a tax hike....

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....That is what you've been "on about" even though the topic isn't, as I made clear not in the OP and title, but also that I reiterated to you in post 14.

Besides trying to derail this thread, you have followed Procrustes' bad example so comprehensively that, if I'm to refrain from accusing you of utter villainy, I must infer that like the JCT reports to which I linked, you didn't read the TPC's report to which the other member linked. When will you endeavor to invest more effort in informing yourself than it takes to look at and read more than just the pictures?​

[Xelor wrote:] The inadequacy of the chart above is one of the reasons I included in post 130 the JCT analysis that isolates the tax impact

[Toddsterpatriot wrote:] Be sure to notify The Tax Policy Center of their inadequacy. Please post their response.

They don't materially disagree with the JCT, so why would I do that? In the opening paragraph of TPC's full report (dated December 18t, 2017) on the distributional effects of the JTCA, the report from which the data in the chart the other member obtained from the NPR website, is found the following statement.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025,and 53 percent in 2027.

Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

The JTCA is an "on the sly" tax increase, and everyone except Trump, GOP partisan sycophants, and myopic know-not-nearly-enoughs, who, like you, don't do more than make invalid inferences from cherry-picked pictures, know it! Even the GOP members of Congress know it; however, for purely temporal political expediency they chose to pass a major bill that's bad rather than take the time to craft a major tax bill that (1) revenue neutral (by which I here mean doesn't increase the deficit any more than it otherwise would increase), (2) is distributionally equitable to middle and lower income groups, and (3) that lowers corporate marginal tax rates. something which could have been done paid for largely via a mix of eliminating corporate loopholes and eliminating high-income individuals' loopholes.

Single middle quintile or middle three quintiles. It's all middle class.

Be sure to tell whiny liberals to specify that in their next whine.

I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced.

I didn't see mention of pay hikes in those links. Or that a certain rate of inflation turns the cut into a hike.

You've been trying to derail this thread by repeatedly asking that off-topic question about whether the JTCA is constitutes a tax hike....

Only because the media keeps saying it will hike taxes on the middle class.

Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025.....Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

5% paying more isn't what the media has been claiming.

[Xelor wrote:] I did already. See post 130 and the linked documents I referenced.

[Todd wrote:] I didn't see mention of pay hikes in those links. Or that a certain rate of inflation turns the cut into a hike.

[Citing Xelor, Todd inaptly edited Xelor's statement as follows:] Compared to current law, 5 percent of taxpayers would pay more tax in 2018, 9 percent in 2025.....Those increases are why the damn JTCA is unpopular!

[Todd wrote:] 5% paying more isn't what the media has been claiming.

Seriously? You really meant to respond to me as obtusely and disingenuously as you have with those two remarks?

BTW, don't bother answering. You can ask others here what happens when one does that with me.

Here’s what I know. I’m solidly middle class

$80k plus income

Home paid off. No debt. Only bills are association dues taxes lease and insurances.

Have savings. On track to be able to easily retire by 65.

No kids to have to send to college.

18 more years to save. I’ll be fine.

I got one major problem with republicans. They will cost me social security and Medicare $. No question in my mind cuts are coming. That will further widen the gap between the rich and us

It has already been stated that due to the tax cuts they would have to address both of those. All those people that are cheering because ATT gave them a $1000 bonus are going to be in for a rude awakening.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I love it how our tax break expires in 8 years but their tax break never expires

And in 8 years is when the chained CPI they adopted into the bill kicks in those yearly tax increases full swing. At the point of about 2025 is when middle-class taxpayers will get hit with the full cost of the chained CPI provision and it will take them that long to realize that they were gradually being hit with the hidden tax all along. They won't realize this hidden yearly tax increase at first because the cuts cover up the hidden tax increase. And, of course, they'll eventually be placed into a higher tax bracket as a consequence while the last bit of spending power they have with that 4 cent dollar continues to dimish more and more.

At the end of the day, you can't really fault these people on here for thinking they will see gains. These are people of modest means. They don't understand economic theory or our monetary policy and they shouldn't be expected to. Though, I would advise studying both. They have no idea what this tax bill actually did. Though, the infantile arrogance of some of them which accompanies their ignorance to the facts is humorous. It's actually a tax rate increase of 128 billion dollars in the next decade and a 500 billion dollar tax increase in the decade after.

It's kind of funny when you think about it. But we can't call them morons. They just really, truly, do not know what just happened by adopting chained CPI into the bill. Of course, the politicians know.

This graph demonstrates the gradual increase of this hidden tax. As was accurately stated, 128 billion dollars in the next decade and a 500 billion dollar tax increase in the decade after. Along with a higher tax bracket and a continuation of the decline in their purchasing power.

And you will not hear so much as a whisper about chained CPI or its effects on any cable news entertainment program. Which, not ironically, is likely why it isn't mentioned around here any place except where I've mentioned it. People echo what they see on tv like trained monkeys. And nothing beyond that. It's unfortunate.

 

[sealybobo]

I love it how our tax break expires in 8 years but their tax break never expires

And in 8 years is when the chained CPI they adopted into the bill kicks in those yearly tax increases full swing. At the point of about 2025 is when middle-class taxpayers will get hit with the full cost of the chained CPI provision and it will take them that long to realize that they were gradually being hit with the hidden tax all along. They won't realize this hidden yearly tax increase at first because the cuts cover up the hidden tax increase. And, of course, they'll eventually be placed into a higher tax bracket as a consequence while the last bit of spending power they have with that 4 cent dollar continues to dimish more and more.

At the end of the day, you can't really fault these people on here for thinking they will see gains. These are people of modest means. They don't understand economic theory or our monetary policy and they shouldn't be expected to. Though, I would advise studying both. They have no idea what this tax bill actually did. Though, the infantile arrogance of some of them which accompanies their ignorance to the facts is humorous. It's actually a tax rate increase of 128 billion dollars in the next decade and a 500 billion dollar tax increase in the decade after.

It's kind of funny when you think about it. But we can't call them morons. They just really, truly, do not know what just happened by adopting chained CPI into the bill. Of course, the politicians know.

This graph demonstrates the gradual increase of this hidden tax. As was accurately stated, 128 billion dollars in the next decade and a 500 billion dollar tax increase in the decade after. Along with a higher tax bracket and a continuation of the decline in their purchasing power.

And you will not hear so much as a whisper about chained CPI or its effects on any cable news entertainment program. Which, not ironically, is likely why it isn't mentioned around here any place except where I've mentioned it. People echo what they see on tv like trained monkeys. And nothing beyond that. It's unfortunate.

Ice Tea was on Howard Stern yesterday. He sings a song and the lyrics say something like, "when are we going to realize we are all on the same side?"

In other words these poor and middle class Republicans need to wake up. They are worker bees like us yet for some reason they believe the rich will run this country better than We the People.

What they don't realize is that things are messed up because the rich already do run our government. And how have they accomplished this? By dividing us.

Don't they think if we believed this tax break was going to work and help the middle class that we'd be cheering for it? I'm not so married to the Democratic party that I would turn down something good that came from the Republicans but I see what this tax bill is. Why don't they? Because they've been brainwashed. I love it when they say if I dont' want the tax break to send it back. Yea, and put myself in a even bigger hole than the tax break already put me in? Sorry but now I need it. I better invest it too because the cuts to my medicare are going to be more than what Trump is sending me in the mail.