Progressive Propaganda: The Tax Edition

[P@triot]

If you put tax expenditures in the tax code, there are only two ways to offset them.

Actually there is one way to "offset" them. A flat-tax. A 10% flat-tax. But the little progressive parasite doesn't want that, now does she?

 

[Doc1]

If you put tax expenditures in the tax code, there are only two ways to offset them.

1) Raise tax rates on everyone.

2) Borrow money.

Our government does both.

If you decrease one, you have to increase the other.

And what Trump's tax cut did was cause the amount of money which has to be borrowed to go UP!

This is really simple math, folks.

The simple solution is to get rid of the tax expenditures behind this theft.

" tax expenditures"

Letting people keep more of their own money.

 

[Doc1]

RUN g......RUN........

 

[P@triot]

If you put tax expenditures in the tax code, there are only two ways to offset them.

1) Raise tax rates on everyone.

2) Borrow money.

Our government does both.

If you decrease one, you have to increase the other.

And what Trump's tax cut did was cause the amount of money which has to be borrowed to go UP!

This is really simple math, folks.

The simple solution is to get rid of the tax expenditures behind this theft.

" tax expenditures"

Letting people keep more of their own money.

It's one of those buzzwords (like "infrastructure") that progressives latch on to. I'd bet the house he had no idea what it even meant until I gave him context clues above.

 

[g5000]

If you put tax expenditures in the tax code, there are only two ways to offset them.

Actually there is one way to "offset" them. A flat-tax. A 10% flat-tax. But the little progressive parasite doesn't want that, now does she?

You are parroting another simplistic premise which has a giant hole in it.

You see, any tax scheme can be compromised by tax expenditures.

For instance, a ten percent flat tax can still have exemptions, credits, and deductions which will require borrowing to be increased.

You cannot escape the math I laid out as simply as possible for you, tard.

So once again:

If you put tax expenditures in the tax code, there are only two ways to offset them.
1) Raise tax rates on everyone.

2) Borrow money.

If you decrease one, you have to increase the other. If you decrease borrowing, you have to increase tax rates more. If you decrease the tax rate, you have to increase borrowing.

Your plan to drop tax rates to ten percent means we will have to borrow even more as long as the existing tax expenditures continue. Our deficits will be even more astronomical.

 

[g5000]

I prefer taxes on consumption over taxes on production. We should eliminate the income tax altogether and replace it with something like the Fair Tax.

With ZERO exemptions in the tax code.

 

[Doc1]

If you put tax expenditures in the tax code, there are only two ways to offset them.

Actually there is one way to "offset" them. A flat-tax. A 10% flat-tax. But the little progressive parasite doesn't want that, now does she?

You are parroting another simplistic premise which has a giant hole in it.

You see, any tax scheme can be compromised by tax expenditures.

For instance, a ten percent flat tax can still have exemptions, credits, and deductions which will require borrowing to be increased.

You cannot escape the math I laid out as simply as possible for you, tard.

So once again:

If you put tax expenditures in the tax code, there are only two ways to offset them.
1) Raise tax rates on everyone.

2) Borrow money.

If you decrease one, you have to increase the other. If you decrease borrowing, you have to increase tax rates more. If you decrease the tax rate, you have to increase borrowing.

Your plan to drop tax rates to ten percent means we will have to borrow even more as long as the existing tax expenditures continue. Our deficits will be even more astronomical.

(smile) I have always owned you boy.

 

[P@triot]

For instance, a ten percent flat tax can still have exemptions, credits, and deductions which will require borrowing to be increased.

Um...no...they can't. That's what makes it a "flat-tax". You refuse to permit exemptions.

Holy geezus are you a special kind of short-bus stupid.

 

[P@triot]

I prefer taxes on consumption over taxes on production. We should eliminate the income tax altogether and replace it with something like the Fair Tax.

With ZERO exemptions in the tax code.

Now THAT I agree with 1,000%

 

[Doc1]

For instance, a ten percent flat tax can still have exemptions, credits, and deductions which will require borrowing to be increased.

Um...no...they can't. That's what makes it a "flat-tax". You refuse to permit exemptions.

Holy geezus are you a special kind of short-bus stupid.

Oh no, he has been labeled "special" by his "Preacher" and the Republican Party, just ask him.

 

[g5000]

Did any of you ever stop and ask yourself how a postcard tax return is possible?

It's only possible if you can't declare any exemptions, credits, or deductions.

I'm all for that!

At least three Republican candidates proposed a postcard tax return during the primaries.

You rejected all of them and went with the big spending New York Democrat instead.

 

[P@triot]

Did any of you ever stop and ask yourself how a postcard tax return is possible? It's only possible if you can't declare any exemptions, credits, or deductions. I'm all for that!

Well that is a flat tax!

 

[g5000]

Did any of you ever stop and ask yourself how a postcard tax return is possible? It's only possible if you can't declare any exemptions, credits, or deductions. I'm all for that!

Well that is a flat tax!

No. That is not what a flat tax is.

A flat tax is an income tax which taxes everyone at the same tax rate.

It still allows for tax exemptions, credits, and deductions.

You can have a postcard tax return with the current tax rates.

The elimination of tax expenditures is what makes a postcard tax return.

 

[g5000]

See, that's what made Ted Cruz so disingenuous. He kept talking about his postcard tax return, but he never informed the rubes of the full implications of what that meant.

He never told them it meant taking away most of their exemptions, deductions, and credits.

Cruz was a coward, which is too bad. I would have like him more if he was more honest.

 

[g5000]

If we eliminated tax expenditures, and didn't change the tax rates, you could do your taxes on a postcard.

But this would result in you paying a lot more tax. It would increase tax revenues by $1.4 trillion.

That's why you can and must lower tax rates after you eliminate tax expenditures.

 

[P@triot]

Did any of you ever stop and ask yourself how a postcard tax return is possible? It's only possible if you can't declare any exemptions, credits, or deductions. I'm all for that!

Well that is a flat tax!

No. That is not what a flat tax is.

A flat tax is an income tax which taxes everyone at the same tax rate.

It still allows for tax exemptions, credits, and deductions.

You can have a postcard tax return with the current tax rates.

The elimination of tax expenditures is what makes a postcard tax return.

You clearly have no clue what a flat-tax is. It is absolutely one rate with no exemptions.

 

[P@triot]

If we eliminated tax expenditures, and didn't change the tax rates, you could do your taxes on a postcard.

But this would result in you paying a lot more tax. It would increase tax revenues by $1.4 trillion.

That's why you can and must lower tax rates after you eliminate tax expenditures.

And why isn’t this done? Because progressives need to hide taxes in a very complicated tax code.

If we do it the right way (the way you are stating), then everything is on the table and the Dumbocrats have to run on a platform of a high tax rate.

 

[P@triot]

It is simply indisputable - low taxes are good for businesses, the economy, and individuals.

Pro-growth reforms like tax cuts and regulatory reforms give businesses the incentive to invest and plan long term.

Low Unemployment Rate Proves Pro-Growth Policies Work

 

[Wry Catcher]

So lower taxes will trickle down to the average American Consumer?

No...it doesn't "trickle down" at all. It floods them in wealth. Just look at the nation right now. Look at the headlines.

1. You lie by omission, in this case you do not post my entire comments, you cherry pick a line and add an unsubstantiated opinion not based on reality and past experience.
2. Today's headlines above the fold will report on the foolish remarks at the UN and the violence and deaths a direct result of Trump's callousness and inability to consider the consequences of his actions. It is all about him, and no one else matters.

Are you Hamas boy? Blame Hamas, no the Israeli's, not Trump, not the Palestinians. You're quite the punk boy.

Thanks so much for sharing.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And I'll bet that you were a deficit hawk during the Obama years--don't lie. Whats up with that now?

Absolutely! And I still am. Chew on this, snowflake...

The Congressional Budget Office says that federal revenues in January added up to $362 billion. That's an increase of $18 billion— or 5.2% — from the year before. As a result, the government ran a surplus of $51 billion that month, which is equal to the previous January.

In other words, President Trump and the Republicans have increased revenues to the federal government while at the same time, decreasing what the citizens have to pay. That's what conservative policy always does - it solves problems and creates prosperity (while failed progressive policy creates poverty)

Go Figure: Tax Revenues Climbed $18 Billion In First Month Of GOP Tax Cuts | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

Well, lets see what this bullshit is all about.

First of all, the Investors Business Daily, from which your article is pulled is of questionable veracity and considerably right leaning:

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

There is no link to the actual CBO report except this one :

Monthly Budget Review for January 2018
February 7, 2018
The federal budget deficit was $174 billion for the first four months of fiscal year 2018, CBO estimates, $16 billion more than the shortfall recorded during the same period last year.

So while the IBD is touting the one time revenue increase for January.... and putting that out there as an indication that the tax plan will have a long term positive effect on the deficit and the debt, things seem to have gone south the following month.
Now lets take a look at what the CBO really said from a link that someone else also posted here:

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53638-mbr.pdf

Monthly Budget Review for February 2018
The federal budget deficit was $392 billion for the first five months of fiscal year 2018, the Congressional Budget Office estimates, $42 billion more than the shortfall recorded during the same period last year. Revenues and outlays were higher, by 2 percent and 4 percent, respectively, than during the first five months of fiscal year 2017.

You might want to consider that revenues are only one side of the equation. Spending is the other. The bottom line is the deficit.

You might also want to note that:

■ Corporate income taxes fell by about $15 billion (or 17 percent). Most of that decline occurred in December, when most corporations made their final quarterly estimated payments for tax year 2017.
■ Revenues from other sources fell by $6 billion (or 6 percent), largely as a result of reduced income from fees and fines.

and:

Total Outlays: Up by 4 Percent in the First Five Months of Fiscal Year 2018 Outlays for the first five months of fiscal year 2018 were $1,679 billion, $72 billion higher than they were during the same period last year, CBO estimates. If not for the shift of certain payments from October to September (which also occurred last year) because the first of the month fell on a weekend, outlays so far this year would have been $44 billion larger than they were—and $75 billion (or 4.5 percent) larger than outlays during the same period last year. The discussion below reflects adjustments to account for those timing shifts

.

and this:

Estimated Deficit in February 2018: $216 Billion The federal government incurred a deficit of $216 billion in February 2018, CBO estimates—$24 billion larger than the deficit in February 2017.
CBO estimates that receipts in February 2018 totaled $157 billion—$15 billion (or 9 percent) less than those in the same month last year. Individual income tax refunds rose by $11 billion (or 17 percent); the share of total annual refunds paid in February varies from year to year. Withholding of individual income and payroll taxes fell by $3 billion (or 2 percent), further reducing receipts. Increases in wages and salaries were more than offset by a decline in the share of wages withheld for taxes, CBO estimates, reflecting the new withholding tables issued in January by the IRS.

Now keep trying to bullshit us about where the deficit is headed.