This Is Too Good!

[PoliticalChic]

The one downside is that the de facto federal tax increase in high tax states has not yet hit. There are going to be all kinds of unpredictable effects.

I may have to put my bungalow up for sale.....

You won't get much if it is in a high tax state and masonry burns poorly. However taxes will go way up.

Check this out, willie.....

"Ukrainian-born, Moscow-raised billionaire Len Blavatnik has paid a record $90 million for an Upper East Side mansion, sources told the Post."
https://nypost.com/2018/02/14/nycs-most-expensive-townhouse-sets-new-record/



BTW......Hillary donors.....

"Even Leonard Blavatnik, the owner of Warner Music, who made most of his fortune – estimated by Bloomberg Billionaires at $16.2 billion – in Russia in oil and other industrial assets and who sprinkled donations generously among Republican candidates, has not given anything to Trump. His wife, Emily, has pitched in $33,400 to the Democratic Party and the maximum for a personal contribution, $2,700, to Clinton.

Two other Clinton donors are Maria Baibakova, who gave $2,700 and who was described by Politico as a “big player in Democratic Party politics,” hosting fundraisers and serving on policy committee, and Daria Zhukova, with the same contributions as Emily Blavatnik’s.”
Clinton slammed Trump for Russia ties – but she has them, too


Clearly Democrat collusion.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Companies never fired employees when Obama was President

Oh, they did.........But now trump has given them a HUGE reward through tax cuts,
I guess to "thank" them for laying off even MORE workers.....Nice, isn't it?

If only everyone worked for the state and received the exact same wage like they do in Progressive Mecca North Korea! Single Payer Healthcare! No Guns! No Carbon footprint!

 

[william the wie]

Well we should be @ 7-8% GDP growth at mid-terms with Blue flight aided by arson should be going great guns.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The government, via Trump, is borrowing the money to give those employees bonuses. The employers aren't paying anything.

They are transferring their tax savings to their employees and customers in some cases. You know.......trickle down????

 

[DOTR]

....the man who goes to buy a car in Moscow, pays for it, and is told by the salesman that he can collect it on a particular date in 10 years' time.
The buyer thinks for a moment and then asks: 'Morning or afternoon?'
The salesman, astonished by the question, asks: 'What difference does it make?'
And the buyer answers: 'Well, the plumber is coming in the morning.'

What happens when socialists take over a desert? A: Nothing for a while..then a shortage of sand.

Three men are sitting in a KGB cell. The first asks the second why he is there and he replies, "Because I criticized Karl Radek when he was in power." The first man responds, "What? But I am here because I spoke out in favor of Radek when he was falling from power!" Both look to the third man and ask him why he is in jail. He answers, "I'm Karl Radek."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump policy results in exactly the opposite of what Democrats claimed it would do....

The cuts may be the best things since sliced bread but I'm skeptical. Since the budget has not been shrunk in proportion to the tax cuts the deficit will have to grow. In other words we're borrowing money and redistributing it. I don't know the exact numbers but I'd guess that for every dollar of deficit a quarter might go to the poor and middle class with the rest going to corporations and the rich. Giving to corporations my help the economy, although it is already doing just fine, but giving go the rich when their share of the countries wealth is growing, is just more unnecessary class warfare.

No, class warfare is taking other people's money because you think they have too much.

We are not borrowing money and redistributing it. We are taking less money from Americans.

The only way Republicans can get Democrats on board to do the things we want is to spend money on things they want even though they are the minority party. Want to cut the deficit? Put more Republicans in power especially in the Senate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Companies announce layoffs alongside tax cut bonuses - Axios
https://www.axios.com/companies-are-announcing-layoffs-alongside-1516906209-24...
Comcast announced 100,000 bonuses of $1,000, while around 500 managers, supervisors, and salespeople were fired. AT&T announced 200,000 bonuses of $1,000, while laying off thousands. Walmart announced minimum hourly wage raises to $11, and offering $1,000 bonuses; on the same day it announced the lay off ...

Walmart announces wage hikes and bonuses — and layoffs | New ...
https://nypost.com/.../walmart-cites-tax-overhaul-as-it-raises-minimum-wage-offers-bo...
Jan 11, 2018 - More than 7500 Sam's Club workers learned on Thursday that their stores were closing and they were possibly out of work. The news of the 63 store closures...

Corporate America Celebrated Tax Cuts by Laying Off Workers - VICE
https://www.vice.com/.../corporate-america-celebrated-tax-cuts-by-laying-off-workers
Jan 10, 2018 - If a business gave a bonus in 2017, it went against the 35 percent corporate tax rate then in effect. If were to give one this year, the ... Because around the same time that they made a big show of rewarding employees with bonuses, both companies quietly engaged in layoffs. Comcast fired 500 members of ...

AT&T quietly lays off thousands after touting bonuses - IndyStar
AT&T, touting bonuses and investment fueled by tax reform, quietly lays off thousands
Jan 2, 2018 - Moments after Congress passed a Republican-backed tax overhaul that will savecorporations billions of dollars per year, AT&T was the first major company to draw a link between the bill and benefits for workers. AT&T said it would give $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 employees and invest $1 billion in the ...

Pepsi announces bonuses and layoffs after earnings - BI
www.businessinsider.com/pepsi-announces-bonuses-and-layoffs-2018-2
NEW YORK (AP) — PepsiCo reported flat revenue for the last few months of 2017, and said that it will cut some jobs while giving others bonuses of up to $1,000. The layoffs, which will affect its corporate employees, amounts to less than 1 percent of its more than 110,000 employees, the company said Tuesday. Bonuses go ...

AT&T Announces Thousands of Layoffs, Firings Just in Time for ...
www.newsweek.com/christmas-att-layoffs-midwest-bonuses-trump-758391
Dec 24, 2017 - AT&T plans to lay off and fire more than a thousand workers starting early next year, according to local reports. ... Soon after the company announced it would give $200 million worth ofbonuses, President Donald Trump praised the move as an indicator of how the tax bill could benefit American workers.

Comcast Fired Hundreds of Workers Before Christmas Alongside ...
www.newsweek.com/comcast-fired-500-workers-christmas-after-pledging-give-emplo...
Jan 5, 2018 - Just two weeks before Christmas, hundreds of Comcast door-to-door salespeople were called into company offices and fired from their jobs, it has emerged, just after the telecommunications giant announced it would be giving out $1,000 bonuses to staffers thanks to a major tax cut. The firingsare reported ...

Only a liberal would think it's worse that companies give bonuses and raises to the people they didn't have to layoff.

HINT: It didn't matter if we got tax cuts or not. Those companies were going to layoff those workers anyway.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The one downside is that the de facto federal tax increase in high tax states has not yet hit. There are going to be all kinds of unpredictable effects.

Well then isn't the issue with their state and not their federal government?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have no problem with people who work hard, have rare talent, take risks, etc., having money. I don't think we need to remove what little inheritance taxes we do have. As I see it, that will help to maintain a perennial group of rich families.

Just where in our Constitution does it say one of the jobs of the federal government is to maintain "perennial" families?

 

[william the wie]

The one downside is that the de facto federal tax increase in high tax states has not yet hit. There are going to be all kinds of unpredictable effects.

Well then isn't the issue with their state and not their federal government?

The blue wall refugees will bring their socialist assumptions with them when they head to the red states that is a national problem.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The one downside is that the de facto federal tax increase in high tax states has not yet hit. There are going to be all kinds of unpredictable effects.

Well then isn't the issue with their state and not their federal government?

The blue wall refugees will bring their socialist assumptions with them when they head to the red states that is a national problem.

It could be. It seems many of them run there.

I deliver to a place in a town called Kent, Ohio. Outside of the famous college, it's pretty much small town living. There are twin lakes on the major route to downtown, and I asked my customer if they minded when city people moved there (since it was always my dream to live on a small lake.)

He said he didn't mind the city people, but hated city ideas. They move in and then attend council meetings saying we need big parking lots, more playgrounds, more industry and shopping centers. He said if they want all that, WTF didn't they just stay in their city? We like it the way it is out here, and we don't want people coming here and changing it.

I guess it's just what liberals do. Once they ruin where they live, they want to move elsewhere and ruin that too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The one downside is that the de facto federal tax increase in high tax states has not yet hit. There are going to be all kinds of unpredictable effects.

Well then isn't the issue with their state and not their federal government?

The blue wall refugees will bring their socialist assumptions with them when they head to the red states that is a national problem.

As seen in Virginia....

 

[alang1216]

We are not borrowing money and redistributing it. We are taking less money from Americans.

If we are taking less money from Americans but we are spending the same amount where does the difference come from?

 

[alang1216]

I guess it's just what liberals do. Once they ruin where they live, they want to move elsewhere and ruin that too.

I think that is exactly what the Native Americans say.

Everyone wants to be either first into a place or the last. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

 

[william the wie]

We are not borrowing money and redistributing it. We are taking less money from Americans.

If we are taking less money from Americans but we are spending the same amount where does the difference come from?

From reducing regulatory burden. That kind of paperwork often costs more than direct taxation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We are not borrowing money and redistributing it. We are taking less money from Americans.

If we are taking less money from Americans but we are spending the same amount where does the difference come from?

From reducing regulatory burden. That kind of paperwork often costs more than direct taxation.

Spot on, willie.....

In fact, I believe that reduction is the main reason the two parties both hate President Trump....

Here's the reason the establishment of both parties is anti-Trump: he is a threat to their wealth.


"Trump Attack on Regulation
Starts To Win Admiration
Both At Home and Abroad"
Trump Attack on Regulation Starts To Win Admiration Both At Home and Abroad - The New York Sun



Most important to the tyrants...er, Congressmen....is that by producing regulations that stymie businesses....said businesses have to bribe....er, lobby....the Representative to put in loopholes.




Ending regulation is an existential danger to their sinecures: they go to Washington to do good, and end up doing well.

Every notice how many Congressmen leave government far richer than when they went in?

 

[alang1216]

We are not borrowing money and redistributing it. We are taking less money from Americans.

If we are taking less money from Americans but we are spending the same amount where does the difference come from?

From reducing regulatory burden. That kind of paperwork often costs more than direct taxation.

 

[alang1216]

We are not borrowing money and redistributing it. We are taking less money from Americans.

If we are taking less money from Americans but we are spending the same amount where does the difference come from?

From reducing regulatory burden. That kind of paperwork often costs more than direct taxation.

Spot on, willie.....

Can you provide an example of a regulation that wasn't created to address an existing problem? And how will removing the regulation not allow the same problem to re-emerge?

 

[PoliticalChic]

We are not borrowing money and redistributing it. We are taking less money from Americans.

If we are taking less money from Americans but we are spending the same amount where does the difference come from?

From reducing regulatory burden. That kind of paperwork often costs more than direct taxation.

Spot on, willie.....

Can you provide an example of a regulation that wasn't created to address an existing problem? And how will removing the regulation not allow the same problem to re-emerge?

Of course.

1. The Spotted Owl campaign, as is so very many other environmental campaigns, a deceit. It is a way of advancing the real agenda, confiscating property, making land off-limit, and eliminating any human presence. No matter the cost. No matter the result.
2. Take the spotted owl case….One of the people instrumental in shutting down the forests told me that ‘if the spotted owl hadn’t existed, we would have had to invent it.’ The goal was to stop logging….It is totally questionable whether owls were endangered by logging. Was it good for the overall health of the forest? Probably not. Was it good for the spotted owl? It probably didn’t make a difference. Did it hurt the overall economies of the West? Yes.” Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p.129.

How is it that I teach you on a daily basis....yet you never learn?


Never mind.....the answer is obvious.

 

[alang1216]

We are not borrowing money and redistributing it. We are taking less money from Americans.

If we are taking less money from Americans but we are spending the same amount where does the difference come from?

From reducing regulatory burden. That kind of paperwork often costs more than direct taxation.

Spot on, willie.....

Can you provide an example of a regulation that wasn't created to address an existing problem? And how will removing the regulation not allow the same problem to re-emerge?

Of course.

1. The Spotted Owl campaign, as is so very many other environmental campaigns, a deceit. It is a way of advancing the real agenda, confiscating property, making land off-limit, and eliminating any human presence. No matter the cost. No matter the result.
2. Take the spotted owl case….One of the people instrumental in shutting down the forests told me that ‘if the spotted owl hadn’t existed, we would have had to invent it.’ The goal was to stop logging….It is totally questionable whether owls were endangered by logging. Was it good for the overall health of the forest? Probably not. Was it good for the spotted owl? It probably didn’t make a difference. Did it hurt the overall economies of the West? Yes.” Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p.129.

How is it that I teach you on a daily basis....yet you never learn?


Never mind.....the answer is obvious.

So the Spotted Owl campaign was a vast, left-wing conspiracy? Are you saying the habitat of the Spotted Owl is not shrinking? You may not think the extinction of a species is a loss to mankind but others will disagree and were able to make a case in spite of the pressure of the lumber industry.

You may not like the regulation and it may be a complete failure but it is a perfect example of a regulation being imposed to solve a very real problem, in this case habitat loss.