Don’t Believe the Democrat Attacks on Tax Reform. Here Are the Facts.

[otto105]

Yes you are. Supporters are claiming that bringing that money home will create jobs or raise the pay of workers. It will not. I do not disagree with lowering taxes on money brought back into the US, it will not benefit the average person. It will benefit the rich.

ROFL! Of course it will. If a huge inflow of cash from overseas will not create jobs, then nothing will.

Does it create jobs in the tax heavens it is stored in now?

It sure does.

Can you post where that happens....ya know for being a truthful guy.

it happens in other countries.

Well, see, that is the question.

Where does this happen in other countries.


Can you show/post anything that backs up your assertion?

 

[Brain357]

For almost a decade, those same people you see bashing this tax reduction are the same politicians that gave us the 'economic wisdom' of Barack Obama.

Yep, the people who gaves us an additional $10 trillion in debt are whining about a tax cut adding to the debt.

Who did that? How?

Obama and his Dim cronies in Congress did it, dumbass. Haven't you been paying attention for the last 8 years?

Yes republicans controlled congress and the purse strings for most of it...

ROFL! The Republicans are to blame?

Obama always demanded more spending than what was in the budgets Republicans submitted. He even shut down the government to get it.

The idea that Republicans are to blame is just ludicrous

Congress controls the money.

So then Reagan tripled the debt and Clinton balanced the budget?

 

[bripat9643]

we are not saying that, we are agreeing with the legislature that it makes sense to do that.

Yes you are. Supporters are claiming that bringing that money home will create jobs or raise the pay of workers. It will not. I do not disagree with lowering taxes on money brought back into the US, it will not benefit the average person. It will benefit the rich.

ROFL! Of course it will. If a huge inflow of cash from overseas will not create jobs, then nothing will.

Does it create jobs in the tax heavens it is stored in now?

It sure does.

Can you post where that happens....ya know for being a truthful guy.

Ireland, Panama, Caymen Islands, Switzerland.

 

[bripat9643]

Yep, the people who gaves us an additional $10 trillion in debt are whining about a tax cut adding to the debt.

Who did that? How?

Obama and his Dim cronies in Congress did it, dumbass. Haven't you been paying attention for the last 8 years?

Yes republicans controlled congress and the purse strings for most of it...

ROFL! The Republicans are to blame?

Obama always demanded more spending than what was in the budgets Republicans submitted. He even shut down the government to get it.

The idea that Republicans are to blame is just ludicrous

Congress controls the money.

So then Reagan tripled the debt and Clinton balanced the budget?

ROFL! Yeah, right, Congress controls the money except when Republicans are in office.

 

[BluesLegend]

Stop lying then we can discuss the issue.

What am I lying about?

DISCUSS.

I'm growing tired of the left's 40 year old 'tax cuts for the rich' talking point nonsense. If you want to have a rational discussion on this topic, which could be bipartisan and thoughtful, check your talking points at the door.

What is "irrational" about not wanting to give those ALREADY DOING GREAT in this country yet another huge tax-cut at expense of blowing yet another hole in Federal budgets?

You are bailing on rational discussion because you know this tax-cut bill is ridiculous.

Christ almighty...lets discuss FACTS not talking points. This bill caps one of the biggest deductions for the 'rich' the mortgage interest deduction on homes. The vast majority of Americans are not effected by this, the rich they got screwed. Here's another the deduction for state income and sales taxes, eliminated. The poor and middle class get a pass, an increase in the standard deduction to offset this. The 'rich' again get screwed.

What you do not factor in is the loss of the personal exemption. That means if you have a family of more than 3 people then you are losing money on your deductions. Also people who have certain issues such as blindness can take 2 exemptions which means their taxes will go up. Also middle class people in the suburbs will such as Atlanta will see their taxes go up. Then we have the rate cuts which will benefit the rich.

You are the one using TALKING POINTS NOT FACTS.

Bruce Bartlett helped Jack Kemp develop what would become the Reagan tax cuts, He is opposed to the bill.
“What they have here is a big tax cut for the rich paid for with random increases in taxes for various constituencies,” Mr. Bartlett said. “It’s ridiculous. And it’s telling that they are ramming this through without any debate. All of the empirical evidence goes against the tax cut.”

Math fail lib please The Senate bill has 7 tax brackets, here's how they compare to the existing 7 brackets up to $470,700 in income for a couple filing jointly. The bottom gets a nice tax cut, nobody gets whacked until they hit the $290k bracket that's the one to avoid.

10% to $19050 TAX INCREASE wait for it...$40.
12% to $77400 TAX CUT $1,545
22.5% to $120,000 TAX CUT $11,260
25% to 290,000 TAX INCREASE $8,769
32.5% to 390,000 TAX CUT $19,236
35% to $470,700 TAX CUT $9,891

 

[BluesLegend]

What am I lying about?

DISCUSS.

I'm growing tired of the left's 40 year old 'tax cuts for the rich' talking point nonsense. If you want to have a rational discussion on this topic, which could be bipartisan and thoughtful, check your talking points at the door.

What is "irrational" about not wanting to give those ALREADY DOING GREAT in this country yet another huge tax-cut at expense of blowing yet another hole in Federal budgets?

You are bailing on rational discussion because you know this tax-cut bill is ridiculous.

Christ almighty...lets discuss FACTS not talking points. This bill caps one of the biggest deductions for the 'rich' the mortgage interest deduction on homes. The vast majority of Americans are not effected by this, the rich they got screwed. Here's another the deduction for state income and sales taxes, eliminated. The poor and middle class get a pass, an increase in the standard deduction to offset this. The 'rich' again get screwed.

What you do not factor in is the loss of the personal exemption. That means if you have a family of more than 3 people then you are losing money on your deductions. Also people who have certain issues such as blindness can take 2 exemptions which means their taxes will go up. Also middle class people in the suburbs will such as Atlanta will see their taxes go up. Then we have the rate cuts which will benefit the rich.

You are the one using TALKING POINTS NOT FACTS.

Bruce Bartlett helped Jack Kemp develop what would become the Reagan tax cuts, He is opposed to the bill.
“What they have here is a big tax cut for the rich paid for with random increases in taxes for various constituencies,” Mr. Bartlett said. “It’s ridiculous. And it’s telling that they are ramming this through without any debate. All of the empirical evidence goes against the tax cut.”

The personal exemption is being doubled, not cut, dumbass. The rest of your post is equally wrong and idiotic.

Actually no the personal exemption is being eliminated, the standard deduction is almost being doubled. This clown above has not accounted for the changes to the child tax credit though. Most likely because he's a ill informed liberal talking points drone.

 

[BluesLegend]

For almost a decade, those same people you see bashing this tax reduction are the same politicians that gave us the 'economic wisdom' of Barack Obama.

Yep, the people who gaves us an additional $10 trillion in debt are whining about a tax cut adding to the debt.

Who did that? How?

Obama and his Dim cronies in Congress did it, dumbass. Haven't you been paying attention for the last 8 years?

Yes republicans controlled congress and the purse strings for most of it...

ROFL! The Republicans are to blame?

Obama always demanded more spending than what was in the budgets Republicans submitted. He even shut down the government to get it.

The idea that Republicans are to blame is just ludicrous

Liberals are not known for their honesty, just the opposite in fact.

 

[bripat9643]

What am I lying about?

DISCUSS.

I'm growing tired of the left's 40 year old 'tax cuts for the rich' talking point nonsense. If you want to have a rational discussion on this topic, which could be bipartisan and thoughtful, check your talking points at the door.

What is "irrational" about not wanting to give those ALREADY DOING GREAT in this country yet another huge tax-cut at expense of blowing yet another hole in Federal budgets?

You are bailing on rational discussion because you know this tax-cut bill is ridiculous.

Christ almighty...lets discuss FACTS not talking points. This bill caps one of the biggest deductions for the 'rich' the mortgage interest deduction on homes. The vast majority of Americans are not effected by this, the rich they got screwed. Here's another the deduction for state income and sales taxes, eliminated. The poor and middle class get a pass, an increase in the standard deduction to offset this. The 'rich' again get screwed.

What you do not factor in is the loss of the personal exemption. That means if you have a family of more than 3 people then you are losing money on your deductions. Also people who have certain issues such as blindness can take 2 exemptions which means their taxes will go up. Also middle class people in the suburbs will such as Atlanta will see their taxes go up. Then we have the rate cuts which will benefit the rich.

You are the one using TALKING POINTS NOT FACTS.

Bruce Bartlett helped Jack Kemp develop what would become the Reagan tax cuts, He is opposed to the bill.
“What they have here is a big tax cut for the rich paid for with random increases in taxes for various constituencies,” Mr. Bartlett said. “It’s ridiculous. And it’s telling that they are ramming this through without any debate. All of the empirical evidence goes against the tax cut.”

Math fail lib please The Senate bill has 7 tax brackets, here's how they compare to the existing 7 brackets up to $470,700 in income for a couple filing jointly. The bottom gets a nice tax cut, nobody gets whacked until they hit the $290k bracket that's the one to avoid.

10% to $19050 TAX INCREASE wait for it...$40.
12% to $77400 TAX CUT $1,545
22.5% to $120,000 TAX CUT $11,260
25% to 290,000 TAX INCREASE $8,769
32.5% to 390,000 TAX CUT $19,236
35% to $470,700 TAX CUT $9,891

I thought this bill was supposed to simplify our taxes.

 

[AntonToo]

Yep, the people who gaves us an additional $10 trillion in debt are whining about a tax cut adding to the debt.

Who did that? How?

Obama and his Dim cronies in Congress did it, dumbass. Haven't you been paying attention for the last 8 years?

Yes republicans controlled congress and the purse strings for most of it...

ROFL! The Republicans are to blame?

Obama always demanded more spending than what was in the budgets Republicans submitted. He even shut down the government to get it.

The idea that Republicans are to blame is just ludicrous

Liberals are not known for their honesty, just the opposite in fact.

Lying rightwingers often say that.

 

[sartre play]

Why are we not considering all taxes & there effect? where does this 47 % pay no taxes come from. after 5 years of retirement we expect to break even this fed tax year. yet we still paid 10% each fed&state tax on stock sold. we still pay taxes on property, at the grocery store, the gas pump on utility bills you name it they tax it. who the heck pays nothing the guy living under a bridge? some one sold you a line, sure we have a % of people using the system that don't work, & it makes a lot of us angry. but most people work or have worked. why focus on them, why not the real bums, those who miss handle our money, spend trillions like drunken sailors on leave.

The 47% refers to the people who pay Zero net federal income tax.

That would include people over 65 living on SS and a small pension or SS and there life savings? what % of the population is that?

 

[sartre play]

Republic pols did this in Kansas and what happened?



Anyone....can answer.

We took a large loss right before retirement, prop tax went way up, property value went way down. we had to move out of Kansas, where we had been happy for 20 years.

 

[AntonToo]

Did you just make this up? No Dynamic Scoring shows that growth will offset anywhere near the volume of the cost

The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation said Wednesday afternoon that the Senate tax bill would add $1 trillion to federal budget deficits over the next decade, even after accounting for additional economic growth, a major blow to Republicans’ contention that the $1.5 trillion tax cuts in the bill will pay for themselves through growth. […]

The committee said economic growth generated by the tax cut will offset losses by about $458 billion over the next decade. Over that same period, an additional $51 billion will be needed to pay interest on the additional debt the government will borrow to pay for the tax cuts.

Official new report: Republican tax cuts won't pay for themselves

What was the exact grown prediction in that calculation?
.

I've got an idea, why don't you read up on it, understand it, form an opinion based on something and THEN comeback here to make a counter argument.

That is much better than simply making things up out of thin air.

So what you're saying is you have no clue what projected growth was calculated in those estimates. And the fact is they don't say in their report.


.

Lol - do you have ANYTHING positive to say to make ANY sort of counter argument??

I gave you serious dynamic scoring, by serious economists, you gave us NOTHING to support your rediculous assertion that these tax-cuts will be a self-financing free lunch with nothing but upsides, rainbows and unicorns.

There is a pervasive intellectual brain drain on the right and it seems to be only getting worse and worse (see election of Trump the clown).

Well child everything I've seen reported the max growth used by any of these folks is 1.9% not the 3+% that we are currently experiencing or better. In the report you posted they talk about the different economic models but didn't get specific about the numbers they plugged in them.


.

You don't know what you are saying. Tax-cut dynamic effects have little to do with ACTUAL growth, it has to do with the component of growth SPECIFICALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR EFFECT.

It doesn't matter if actual growth is 1.9 or 3%, what matters is how much economic activity tax-cuts THEMSELF generate (in this case additional 0.8% GDP growth is projected by 2027).

 

[OKTexas]

What was the exact grown prediction in that calculation?
.

I've got an idea, why don't you read up on it, understand it, form an opinion based on something and THEN comeback here to make a counter argument.

That is much better than simply making things up out of thin air.

So what you're saying is you have no clue what projected growth was calculated in those estimates. And the fact is they don't say in their report.


.

Lol - do you have ANYTHING positive to say to make ANY sort of counter argument??

I gave you serious dynamic scoring, by serious economists, you gave us NOTHING to support your rediculous assertion that these tax-cuts will be a self-financing free lunch with nothing but upsides, rainbows and unicorns.

There is a pervasive intellectual brain drain on the right and it seems to be only getting worse and worse (see election of Trump the clown).

Well child everything I've seen reported the max growth used by any of these folks is 1.9% not the 3+% that we are currently experiencing or better. In the report you posted they talk about the different economic models but didn't get specific about the numbers they plugged in them.


.

You don't know what you are saying. Tax-cut dynamic effects have little to do with ACTUAL growth, it has to do with the component of growth SPECIFICALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR EFFECT.

It doesn't matter if actual growth is 1.9 or 3%, what matters is how much economic activity tax-cuts THEMSELF generate (in this case additional 0.8% GDP growth is projected by 2027).

I know my new math skills are lacking, but in the old school they taught us the difference between 1.88 and 2.08 is .2, not .08.


.

 

[AntonToo]

I've got an idea, why don't you read up on it, understand it, form an opinion based on something and THEN comeback here to make a counter argument.

That is much better than simply making things up out of thin air.

So what you're saying is you have no clue what projected growth was calculated in those estimates. And the fact is they don't say in their report.


.

Lol - do you have ANYTHING positive to say to make ANY sort of counter argument??

I gave you serious dynamic scoring, by serious economists, you gave us NOTHING to support your rediculous assertion that these tax-cuts will be a self-financing free lunch with nothing but upsides, rainbows and unicorns.

There is a pervasive intellectual brain drain on the right and it seems to be only getting worse and worse (see election of Trump the clown).

Well child everything I've seen reported the max growth used by any of these folks is 1.9% not the 3+% that we are currently experiencing or better. In the report you posted they talk about the different economic models but didn't get specific about the numbers they plugged in them.


.

You don't know what you are saying. Tax-cut dynamic effects have little to do with ACTUAL growth, it has to do with the component of growth SPECIFICALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR EFFECT.

It doesn't matter if actual growth is 1.9 or 3%, what matters is how much economic activity tax-cuts THEMSELF generate (in this case additional 0.8% GDP growth is projected by 2027).

I know my new math skills are lacking, but in the old school they taught us the difference between 1.88 and 2.08 is .2, not .08.

.

Again, clueless.

0.8% growth is not for year 2027, it is TOTAL, additional long-run GDP growth projected by JTC for 2018-2027.

 

[OKTexas]

So what you're saying is you have no clue what projected growth was calculated in those estimates. And the fact is they don't say in their report.


.

Lol - do you have ANYTHING positive to say to make ANY sort of counter argument??

I gave you serious dynamic scoring, by serious economists, you gave us NOTHING to support your rediculous assertion that these tax-cuts will be a self-financing free lunch with nothing but upsides, rainbows and unicorns.

There is a pervasive intellectual brain drain on the right and it seems to be only getting worse and worse (see election of Trump the clown).

Well child everything I've seen reported the max growth used by any of these folks is 1.9% not the 3+% that we are currently experiencing or better. In the report you posted they talk about the different economic models but didn't get specific about the numbers they plugged in them.


.

You don't know what you are saying. Tax-cut dynamic effects have little to do with ACTUAL growth, it has to do with the component of growth SPECIFICALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR EFFECT.

It doesn't matter if actual growth is 1.9 or 3%, what matters is how much economic activity tax-cuts THEMSELF generate (in this case additional 0.8% GDP growth is projected by 2027).

I know my new math skills are lacking, but in the old school they taught us the difference between 1.88 and 2.08 is .2, not .08.

.

Again, clueless.

0.8% growth is not for year 2027, it is TOTAL, additional long-run GDP growth projected by JTC for 2018-2027.

Ok, which is it, .08 or .8, make up my mind.


.

 

[AntonToo]

Lol - do you have ANYTHING positive to say to make ANY sort of counter argument??

I gave you serious dynamic scoring, by serious economists, you gave us NOTHING to support your rediculous assertion that these tax-cuts will be a self-financing free lunch with nothing but upsides, rainbows and unicorns.

There is a pervasive intellectual brain drain on the right and it seems to be only getting worse and worse (see election of Trump the clown).

Well child everything I've seen reported the max growth used by any of these folks is 1.9% not the 3+% that we are currently experiencing or better. In the report you posted they talk about the different economic models but didn't get specific about the numbers they plugged in them.


.

You don't know what you are saying. Tax-cut dynamic effects have little to do with ACTUAL growth, it has to do with the component of growth SPECIFICALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR EFFECT.

It doesn't matter if actual growth is 1.9 or 3%, what matters is how much economic activity tax-cuts THEMSELF generate (in this case additional 0.8% GDP growth is projected by 2027).

I know my new math skills are lacking, but in the old school they taught us the difference between 1.88 and 2.08 is .2, not .08.

.

Again, clueless.

0.8% growth is not for year 2027, it is TOTAL, additional long-run GDP growth projected by JTC for 2018-2027.

Ok, which is it, .08 or .8, make up my mind.


.

Are you on drugs? 0.8% is the only number I used.

 

[OKTexas]

Well child everything I've seen reported the max growth used by any of these folks is 1.9% not the 3+% that we are currently experiencing or better. In the report you posted they talk about the different economic models but didn't get specific about the numbers they plugged in them.


.

You don't know what you are saying. Tax-cut dynamic effects have little to do with ACTUAL growth, it has to do with the component of growth SPECIFICALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR EFFECT.

It doesn't matter if actual growth is 1.9 or 3%, what matters is how much economic activity tax-cuts THEMSELF generate (in this case additional 0.8% GDP growth is projected by 2027).

I know my new math skills are lacking, but in the old school they taught us the difference between 1.88 and 2.08 is .2, not .08.

.

Again, clueless.

0.8% growth is not for year 2027, it is TOTAL, additional long-run GDP growth projected by JTC for 2018-2027.

Ok, which is it, .08 or .8, make up my mind.


.

Are you on drugs? 0.8% is the only number I used.

Adding an additional .8% year over year is significant.


.

 

[Reasonable]

The GOP handed out a 500 page bill to Congress this evening giving them 3-4 hours to read and digest the info which of course is impossible. There was not one session discussing the bill. Not one..
The democrats weren’t even involved in the process. They were completely shut out.
The unprofessional GOP were still writing in the margins additions as recently as a few hours ago so NO ONE really knows what’s in the bill which is exactly what they want.
Why ram this bill thru and have a vote without anyone really knowing what’s in it?
That’s obvious. It’s such a horrendous bill that will hurt the poor and middle class andca wet kiss to the rich.
Typical republican values.

 

[otto105]

We need to scrap our income tax completely and either institute a flat tax on income or a consumption tax.

Until we do that the 4 million word tax code that is so ridiculously complex that even law makers can't understand it will become an 8 million word tax code that not even the best accountants or tax attorneys can understand

Republics find 8 words strung together complex.

 

[BluesLegend]

I'm growing tired of the left's 40 year old 'tax cuts for the rich' talking point nonsense. If you want to have a rational discussion on this topic, which could be bipartisan and thoughtful, check your talking points at the door.

What is "irrational" about not wanting to give those ALREADY DOING GREAT in this country yet another huge tax-cut at expense of blowing yet another hole in Federal budgets?

You are bailing on rational discussion because you know this tax-cut bill is ridiculous.

Christ almighty...lets discuss FACTS not talking points. This bill caps one of the biggest deductions for the 'rich' the mortgage interest deduction on homes. The vast majority of Americans are not effected by this, the rich they got screwed. Here's another the deduction for state income and sales taxes, eliminated. The poor and middle class get a pass, an increase in the standard deduction to offset this. The 'rich' again get screwed.

What you do not factor in is the loss of the personal exemption. That means if you have a family of more than 3 people then you are losing money on your deductions. Also people who have certain issues such as blindness can take 2 exemptions which means their taxes will go up. Also middle class people in the suburbs will such as Atlanta will see their taxes go up. Then we have the rate cuts which will benefit the rich.

You are the one using TALKING POINTS NOT FACTS.

Bruce Bartlett helped Jack Kemp develop what would become the Reagan tax cuts, He is opposed to the bill.
“What they have here is a big tax cut for the rich paid for with random increases in taxes for various constituencies,” Mr. Bartlett said. “It’s ridiculous. And it’s telling that they are ramming this through without any debate. All of the empirical evidence goes against the tax cut.”

Math fail lib please The Senate bill has 7 tax brackets, here's how they compare to the existing 7 brackets up to $470,700 in income for a couple filing jointly. The bottom gets a nice tax cut, nobody gets whacked until they hit the $290k bracket that's the one to avoid.

10% to $19050 TAX INCREASE wait for it...$40.
12% to $77400 TAX CUT $1,545
22.5% to $120,000 TAX CUT $11,260
25% to 290,000 TAX INCREASE $8,769
32.5% to 390,000 TAX CUT $19,236
35% to $470,700 TAX CUT $9,891

I thought this bill was supposed to simplify our taxes.

LMAO congressional idiots hello.