Trump's tax plan.....You judge!

[nat4900]

Why did we have a surplus in 1969. Because the president and Congress imposed a 10% income tax surcharge,

to pay for the Vietnam War.

......and since right wingers are soooooo "smart", when GWB got us into 2 costly wars....that administration CUT taxes...want to guess what the results would be?

 

[AntonToo]

First, you didn't "explain" anything. Everybody knows why taxes are collected.

If you know why taxes are collected then why are you downplaying of importance of collecting them?

Yes we want to stimulate economy, but there is a COMPETING interest you consistently turn a blind eye to - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. Our budget deficits, although reduced significantly since Great Recession are projected to go up long term due to increased interest rates and continually aging population where worker-to-dependent ratio is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts will put us even further in the hole by 5-10Trillion dollars. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why did we have a surplus in 1969. Because the president and Congress imposed a 10% income tax surcharge,

to pay for the Vietnam War.

......and since right wingers are soooooo "smart", when GWB got us into 2 costly wars....that administration CUT taxes...want to guess what the results would be?

We have not paid for a war since Vietnam, and I include Reagan's escalation of the Cold War in that.

And the explosion of debt in the past 30 some years is the best reflection of that.

 

[nat4900]

We have not paid for a war since Vietnam, and I include Reagan's escalation of the Cold War in that.

And the explosion of debt in the past 30 some years is the best reflection of that.

Another way of expressing the above, is that if anyone "thinks" that BOTH the starting of wars and cutting taxes on corporations are absolutely necessary,THEN these same folks MUST accept humongous deficits to be incurred.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Watch these facts get ignored again by the people who want to believe the wealthy pay too much.

What the wealthy pay and if it is too little or too much is not what we should be focused on. Let's assume for a moment that you taxed the wealthy at 99% of their income and that constitute 99% of all taxes collected. How does that help the bottom 50% who already don't pay taxes? We need to look at the INCOME GAP. Taxing the shit out of the wealthy does not increase income for the bottom 50%.

....but I already explained that bills need to be paid and all that stuff, you are back at your original argument as if nothing happened.

The point of taxing rich is not that it increases anyone's salary(on the contrary it may even shrink it some), the point is to pay the bills (portion of which helps the poor) that we increasingly cover less and less of due to under-taxing and over-spending.


Let's go at it from the other direction - I will now use your very logic to say that we should change tax code to not tax any income above $100,000. That would help or at least not hurt the poor, right? Sounds sane?

A little math lesson then I will make my statement.
If you could spend 1 dollar a second, how long would it take you to spend 1 trillion dollars?
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minutes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365 = $3,153,600 a year. That is over 3 million dollars a year, how many people spend that much?
$3,153,600 x 1000 = 3,153,600,000. That is over 3 billion dollars for a 1000 years, still not 1 trillion dollars.
$3,153,600,000 x 31.71 = $1,000,000,000,000 That is just over 31,710 years to spend 1 trillion dollars.

So the government takes in over 3.2 trillion dollars and spends almost 3.9 trillion dollars in 1 year. Why doesn't the government not spend as much by cutting 1/2 of the budget that most goes to entitlements and those agencies that support those entitlements. If you have a "FAIR" flat tax, everyone pays their fair share, don't need the IRS, and when there is less government there is more money for people who work to spend and create jobs, as this isn't trickle down economics(Liberal term) but supply side economics. See a need, fill a need.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

I like the flat tax idea, but the income taxes collected don't really go to entitlement spending of Social Security and Medicare. Those are funded by the payroll taxes paid by the employee and the employer.

A distinction without a difference. All income and social security taxes are paid into the general fund. All social security payments are made out of the general fund. There is no different source of money. Today's taxpayers are funding all social security payments, just like any other welfare program.

As for employer and employee sides of social security, it's all actually paid by the employer. It's just which line of a form it's on. We pay both sides at the same time, the employee never sees the money. When we look at it in our accounting systems, it's all lumped together as well as the technical distinction is irrelevant.

On the other hand, it's all part of an employee's pay. We subract it all from your salary. We look at the total cost of employment, we don't just count their direct salary. Politicians want to get Americans to overthink it so you have distinctions in your mind that don't exist in reality. Just different lines on forms, that's all they are

I agree Social Security is all part of the employees pay because, as you said, from the employers point of view, it is the total cost of the employee.

However there is a stark distinction between a welfare program like food stamps and Social Security. All employees pay the social security tax, they don't all contribute to the food stamp program.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

First, you didn't "explain" anything. Everybody knows why taxes are collected.

If you know why taxes are collected then why are you downplaying of importance of collecting them?

Yes we want to stimulate economy, but there is a COMPETING interest you consistently turn a blind eye to - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. Our budget deficits, although reduced significantly since Great Recession are projected to go up long term due to increased interest rates and continually aging population where worker-to-dependent ratio is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts will put us even further in the hole by 5-10Trillion dollars. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

 

[kaz]

What the wealthy pay and if it is too little or too much is not what we should be focused on. Let's assume for a moment that you taxed the wealthy at 99% of their income and that constitute 99% of all taxes collected. How does that help the bottom 50% who already don't pay taxes? We need to look at the INCOME GAP. Taxing the shit out of the wealthy does not increase income for the bottom 50%.

....but I already explained that bills need to be paid and all that stuff, you are back at your original argument as if nothing happened.

The point of taxing rich is not that it increases anyone's salary(on the contrary it may even shrink it some), the point is to pay the bills (portion of which helps the poor) that we increasingly cover less and less of due to under-taxing and over-spending.


Let's go at it from the other direction - I will now use your very logic to say that we should change tax code to not tax any income above $100,000. That would help or at least not hurt the poor, right? Sounds sane?

A little math lesson then I will make my statement.
If you could spend 1 dollar a second, how long would it take you to spend 1 trillion dollars?
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minutes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365 = $3,153,600 a year. That is over 3 million dollars a year, how many people spend that much?
$3,153,600 x 1000 = 3,153,600,000. That is over 3 billion dollars for a 1000 years, still not 1 trillion dollars.
$3,153,600,000 x 31.71 = $1,000,000,000,000 That is just over 31,710 years to spend 1 trillion dollars.

So the government takes in over 3.2 trillion dollars and spends almost 3.9 trillion dollars in 1 year. Why doesn't the government not spend as much by cutting 1/2 of the budget that most goes to entitlements and those agencies that support those entitlements. If you have a "FAIR" flat tax, everyone pays their fair share, don't need the IRS, and when there is less government there is more money for people who work to spend and create jobs, as this isn't trickle down economics(Liberal term) but supply side economics. See a need, fill a need.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

I like the flat tax idea, but the income taxes collected don't really go to entitlement spending of Social Security and Medicare. Those are funded by the payroll taxes paid by the employee and the employer.

A distinction without a difference. All income and social security taxes are paid into the general fund. All social security payments are made out of the general fund. There is no different source of money. Today's taxpayers are funding all social security payments, just like any other welfare program.

As for employer and employee sides of social security, it's all actually paid by the employer. It's just which line of a form it's on. We pay both sides at the same time, the employee never sees the money. When we look at it in our accounting systems, it's all lumped together as well as the technical distinction is irrelevant.

On the other hand, it's all part of an employee's pay. We subract it all from your salary. We look at the total cost of employment, we don't just count their direct salary. Politicians want to get Americans to overthink it so you have distinctions in your mind that don't exist in reality. Just different lines on forms, that's all they are

I agree Social Security is all part of the employees pay because, as you said, from the employers point of view, it is the total cost of the employee.

However there is a stark distinction between a welfare program like food stamps and Social Security. All employees pay the social security tax, they don't all contribute to the food stamp program.

What does "contribute" mean?

Do you understand that 100% of your social security check is or will be paid by taxpayers? You didn't contribute anything to it, none of the check is the money you paid in. That was spent as you paid it.

Food Stamps: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients
Social Security: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients

Explain the difference

 

[AntonToo]

First, you didn't "explain" anything. Everybody knows why taxes are collected.

If you know why taxes are collected then why are you downplaying of importance of collecting them?

Yes we want to stimulate economy, but there is a COMPETING interest you consistently turn a blind eye to - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. Our budget deficits, although reduced significantly since Great Recession are projected to go up long term due to increased interest rates and continually aging population where worker-to-dependent ratio is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts will put us even further in the hole by 5-10Trillion dollars. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

 

[kaz]

First, you didn't "explain" anything. Everybody knows why taxes are collected.

If you know why taxes are collected then why are you downplaying of importance of collecting them?

Yes we want to stimulate economy, but there is a COMPETING interest you consistently turn a blind eye to - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. Our budget deficits, although reduced significantly since Great Recession are projected to go up long term due to increased interest rates and continually aging population where worker-to-dependent ratio is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts will put us even further in the hole by 5-10Trillion dollars. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

We've seen various points he made running to be President, but he hasn't presented a plan. Before that, you're just making it up based on your vitriol towards him

 

[AntonToo]

....but I already explained that bills need to be paid and all that stuff, you are back at your original argument as if nothing happened.

The point of taxing rich is not that it increases anyone's salary(on the contrary it may even shrink it some), the point is to pay the bills (portion of which helps the poor) that we increasingly cover less and less of due to under-taxing and over-spending.


Let's go at it from the other direction - I will now use your very logic to say that we should change tax code to not tax any income above $100,000. That would help or at least not hurt the poor, right? Sounds sane?

A little math lesson then I will make my statement.
If you could spend 1 dollar a second, how long would it take you to spend 1 trillion dollars?
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minutes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365 = $3,153,600 a year. That is over 3 million dollars a year, how many people spend that much?
$3,153,600 x 1000 = 3,153,600,000. That is over 3 billion dollars for a 1000 years, still not 1 trillion dollars.
$3,153,600,000 x 31.71 = $1,000,000,000,000 That is just over 31,710 years to spend 1 trillion dollars.

So the government takes in over 3.2 trillion dollars and spends almost 3.9 trillion dollars in 1 year. Why doesn't the government not spend as much by cutting 1/2 of the budget that most goes to entitlements and those agencies that support those entitlements. If you have a "FAIR" flat tax, everyone pays their fair share, don't need the IRS, and when there is less government there is more money for people who work to spend and create jobs, as this isn't trickle down economics(Liberal term) but supply side economics. See a need, fill a need.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

I like the flat tax idea, but the income taxes collected don't really go to entitlement spending of Social Security and Medicare. Those are funded by the payroll taxes paid by the employee and the employer.

A distinction without a difference. All income and social security taxes are paid into the general fund. All social security payments are made out of the general fund. There is no different source of money. Today's taxpayers are funding all social security payments, just like any other welfare program.

As for employer and employee sides of social security, it's all actually paid by the employer. It's just which line of a form it's on. We pay both sides at the same time, the employee never sees the money. When we look at it in our accounting systems, it's all lumped together as well as the technical distinction is irrelevant.

On the other hand, it's all part of an employee's pay. We subract it all from your salary. We look at the total cost of employment, we don't just count their direct salary. Politicians want to get Americans to overthink it so you have distinctions in your mind that don't exist in reality. Just different lines on forms, that's all they are

I agree Social Security is all part of the employees pay because, as you said, from the employers point of view, it is the total cost of the employee.

However there is a stark distinction between a welfare program like food stamps and Social Security. All employees pay the social security tax, they don't all contribute to the food stamp program.

What does "contribute" mean?

Do you understand that 100% of your social security check is or will be paid by taxpayers? You didn't contribute anything to it, none of the check is the money you paid in. That was spent as you paid it.

Food Stamps: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients
Social Security: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients

Explain the difference

First, you didn't "explain" anything. Everybody knows why taxes are collected.

If you know why taxes are collected then why are you downplaying of importance of collecting them?

Yes we want to stimulate economy, but there is a COMPETING interest you consistently turn a blind eye to - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. Our budget deficits, although reduced significantly since Great Recession are projected to go up long term due to increased interest rates and continually aging population where worker-to-dependent ratio is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts will put us even further in the hole by 5-10Trillion dollars. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

We've seen various points he made running to be President, but he hasn't presented a plan. Before that, you're just making it up based on your vitriol towards him

He has in fact presented plan...otherwise there would be nothing to estimate obviously.

Who Benefits From Donald Trump's Tax Plan?

 

[kaz]

A little math lesson then I will make my statement.
If you could spend 1 dollar a second, how long would it take you to spend 1 trillion dollars?
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minutes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365 = $3,153,600 a year. That is over 3 million dollars a year, how many people spend that much?
$3,153,600 x 1000 = 3,153,600,000. That is over 3 billion dollars for a 1000 years, still not 1 trillion dollars.
$3,153,600,000 x 31.71 = $1,000,000,000,000 That is just over 31,710 years to spend 1 trillion dollars.

So the government takes in over 3.2 trillion dollars and spends almost 3.9 trillion dollars in 1 year. Why doesn't the government not spend as much by cutting 1/2 of the budget that most goes to entitlements and those agencies that support those entitlements. If you have a "FAIR" flat tax, everyone pays their fair share, don't need the IRS, and when there is less government there is more money for people who work to spend and create jobs, as this isn't trickle down economics(Liberal term) but supply side economics. See a need, fill a need.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

I like the flat tax idea, but the income taxes collected don't really go to entitlement spending of Social Security and Medicare. Those are funded by the payroll taxes paid by the employee and the employer.

A distinction without a difference. All income and social security taxes are paid into the general fund. All social security payments are made out of the general fund. There is no different source of money. Today's taxpayers are funding all social security payments, just like any other welfare program.

As for employer and employee sides of social security, it's all actually paid by the employer. It's just which line of a form it's on. We pay both sides at the same time, the employee never sees the money. When we look at it in our accounting systems, it's all lumped together as well as the technical distinction is irrelevant.

On the other hand, it's all part of an employee's pay. We subract it all from your salary. We look at the total cost of employment, we don't just count their direct salary. Politicians want to get Americans to overthink it so you have distinctions in your mind that don't exist in reality. Just different lines on forms, that's all they are

I agree Social Security is all part of the employees pay because, as you said, from the employers point of view, it is the total cost of the employee.

However there is a stark distinction between a welfare program like food stamps and Social Security. All employees pay the social security tax, they don't all contribute to the food stamp program.

What does "contribute" mean?

Do you understand that 100% of your social security check is or will be paid by taxpayers? You didn't contribute anything to it, none of the check is the money you paid in. That was spent as you paid it.

Food Stamps: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients
Social Security: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients

Explain the difference

First, you didn't "explain" anything. Everybody knows why taxes are collected.

If you know why taxes are collected then why are you downplaying of importance of collecting them?

Yes we want to stimulate economy, but there is a COMPETING interest you consistently turn a blind eye to - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. Our budget deficits, although reduced significantly since Great Recession are projected to go up long term due to increased interest rates and continually aging population where worker-to-dependent ratio is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts will put us even further in the hole by 5-10Trillion dollars. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

We've seen various points he made running to be President, but he hasn't presented a plan. Before that, you're just making it up based on your vitriol towards him

He has in fact presented plan...otherwise there would be nothing to estimate obviously.

Who Benefits From Donald Trump's Tax Plan?

Again, those are ideas he supports. Calling that a "plan" and comparing it with what he will actually propose to congress is a logical fallacy called equivocation.

He supports those ideas. The plan to congress will have to prioritize that and make tradeoffs. It will also have to account for getting enough votes to pass it. Trying to calculate deficit impacts of the ideas he supports is just intellectual masterbation

 

[AntonToo]

I like the flat tax idea, but the income taxes collected don't really go to entitlement spending of Social Security and Medicare. Those are funded by the payroll taxes paid by the employee and the employer.

A distinction without a difference. All income and social security taxes are paid into the general fund. All social security payments are made out of the general fund. There is no different source of money. Today's taxpayers are funding all social security payments, just like any other welfare program.

As for employer and employee sides of social security, it's all actually paid by the employer. It's just which line of a form it's on. We pay both sides at the same time, the employee never sees the money. When we look at it in our accounting systems, it's all lumped together as well as the technical distinction is irrelevant.

On the other hand, it's all part of an employee's pay. We subract it all from your salary. We look at the total cost of employment, we don't just count their direct salary. Politicians want to get Americans to overthink it so you have distinctions in your mind that don't exist in reality. Just different lines on forms, that's all they are

I agree Social Security is all part of the employees pay because, as you said, from the employers point of view, it is the total cost of the employee.

However there is a stark distinction between a welfare program like food stamps and Social Security. All employees pay the social security tax, they don't all contribute to the food stamp program.

What does "contribute" mean?

Do you understand that 100% of your social security check is or will be paid by taxpayers? You didn't contribute anything to it, none of the check is the money you paid in. That was spent as you paid it.

Food Stamps: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients
Social Security: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients

Explain the difference

If you know why taxes are collected then why are you downplaying of importance of collecting them?

Yes we want to stimulate economy, but there is a COMPETING interest you consistently turn a blind eye to - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. Our budget deficits, although reduced significantly since Great Recession are projected to go up long term due to increased interest rates and continually aging population where worker-to-dependent ratio is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts will put us even further in the hole by 5-10Trillion dollars. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

We've seen various points he made running to be President, but he hasn't presented a plan. Before that, you're just making it up based on your vitriol towards him

He has in fact presented plan...otherwise there would be nothing to estimate obviously.

Who Benefits From Donald Trump's Tax Plan?

Again, those are ideas he supports. Calling that a "plan" and comparing it with what he will actually propose to congress is a logical fallacy called equivocation.

He supports those ideas. The plan to congress will have to prioritize that and make tradeoffs. It will also have to account for getting enough votes to pass it. Trying to calculate deficit impacts of the ideas he supports is just intellectual masterbation

There is something REALLY ******* wrong with you.

That is his plan, those are the estimates of his plan. It is fiscally irresponsible plan.

What the final law will be is not known obviously, nor does it change the fact that this is his proposed plan. If he, or anyone else proposes some OTHER plan, I'll have no problem looking at it's estimated impacts.

 

[kaz]

A distinction without a difference. All income and social security taxes are paid into the general fund. All social security payments are made out of the general fund. There is no different source of money. Today's taxpayers are funding all social security payments, just like any other welfare program.

As for employer and employee sides of social security, it's all actually paid by the employer. It's just which line of a form it's on. We pay both sides at the same time, the employee never sees the money. When we look at it in our accounting systems, it's all lumped together as well as the technical distinction is irrelevant.

On the other hand, it's all part of an employee's pay. We subract it all from your salary. We look at the total cost of employment, we don't just count their direct salary. Politicians want to get Americans to overthink it so you have distinctions in your mind that don't exist in reality. Just different lines on forms, that's all they are

I agree Social Security is all part of the employees pay because, as you said, from the employers point of view, it is the total cost of the employee.

However there is a stark distinction between a welfare program like food stamps and Social Security. All employees pay the social security tax, they don't all contribute to the food stamp program.

What does "contribute" mean?

Do you understand that 100% of your social security check is or will be paid by taxpayers? You didn't contribute anything to it, none of the check is the money you paid in. That was spent as you paid it.

Food Stamps: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients
Social Security: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients

Explain the difference

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

We've seen various points he made running to be President, but he hasn't presented a plan. Before that, you're just making it up based on your vitriol towards him

He has in fact presented plan...otherwise there would be nothing to estimate obviously.

Who Benefits From Donald Trump's Tax Plan?

Again, those are ideas he supports. Calling that a "plan" and comparing it with what he will actually propose to congress is a logical fallacy called equivocation.

He supports those ideas. The plan to congress will have to prioritize that and make tradeoffs. It will also have to account for getting enough votes to pass it. Trying to calculate deficit impacts of the ideas he supports is just intellectual masterbation

There is something REALLY ******* wrong with you.

That is his plan, those are the estimates of his plan. It is fiscally irresponsible plan.

What the final law will be is not known obviously, nor does it change the fact that this is his proposed plan. If he, or anyone else proposes some OTHER plan, I'll have no problem looking at it's estimated impacts.

He hasn't proposed any plan to congress, that's the one that matters. You just hate the guy, you're not able to reason

 

[nat4900]

He hasn't proposed any plan to congress,

So, moron, anything that Trump placed on his website BEFORE the election was just bullshit? Did you then support the clown simply based on THAT bullshit?

What else do we have to go on but what Trump has PROPOSED?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

A little math lesson then I will make my statement.
If you could spend 1 dollar a second, how long would it take you to spend 1 trillion dollars?
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minutes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365 = $3,153,600 a year. That is over 3 million dollars a year, how many people spend that much?
$3,153,600 x 1000 = 3,153,600,000. That is over 3 billion dollars for a 1000 years, still not 1 trillion dollars.
$3,153,600,000 x 31.71 = $1,000,000,000,000 That is just over 31,710 years to spend 1 trillion dollars.

So the government takes in over 3.2 trillion dollars and spends almost 3.9 trillion dollars in 1 year. Why doesn't the government not spend as much by cutting 1/2 of the budget that most goes to entitlements and those agencies that support those entitlements. If you have a "FAIR" flat tax, everyone pays their fair share, don't need the IRS, and when there is less government there is more money for people who work to spend and create jobs, as this isn't trickle down economics(Liberal term) but supply side economics. See a need, fill a need.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

I like the flat tax idea, but the income taxes collected don't really go to entitlement spending of Social Security and Medicare. Those are funded by the payroll taxes paid by the employee and the employer.

A distinction without a difference. All income and social security taxes are paid into the general fund. All social security payments are made out of the general fund. There is no different source of money. Today's taxpayers are funding all social security payments, just like any other welfare program.

As for employer and employee sides of social security, it's all actually paid by the employer. It's just which line of a form it's on. We pay both sides at the same time, the employee never sees the money. When we look at it in our accounting systems, it's all lumped together as well as the technical distinction is irrelevant.

On the other hand, it's all part of an employee's pay. We subract it all from your salary. We look at the total cost of employment, we don't just count their direct salary. Politicians want to get Americans to overthink it so you have distinctions in your mind that don't exist in reality. Just different lines on forms, that's all they are

I agree Social Security is all part of the employees pay because, as you said, from the employers point of view, it is the total cost of the employee.

However there is a stark distinction between a welfare program like food stamps and Social Security. All employees pay the social security tax, they don't all contribute to the food stamp program.

What does "contribute" mean?

Do you understand that 100% of your social security check is or will be paid by taxpayers? You didn't contribute anything to it, none of the check is the money you paid in. That was spent as you paid it.

Food Stamps: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients
Social Security: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients

Explain the difference

First, you didn't "explain" anything. Everybody knows why taxes are collected.

If you know why taxes are collected then why are you downplaying of importance of collecting them?

Yes we want to stimulate economy, but there is a COMPETING interest you consistently turn a blind eye to - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. Our budget deficits, although reduced significantly since Great Recession are projected to go up long term due to increased interest rates and continually aging population where worker-to-dependent ratio is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts will put us even further in the hole by 5-10Trillion dollars. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

We've seen various points he made running to be President, but he hasn't presented a plan. Before that, you're just making it up based on your vitriol towards him

He has in fact presented plan...otherwise there would be nothing to estimate obviously.

Who Benefits From Donald Trump's Tax Plan?

How much money spent on the war on poverty?
Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty.
War on Poverty at 50 -- despite trillions spent, poverty ...
www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/08/war-on-poverty-at-50-despite-trillions-spent-pove…

Seems that the war on poverty for the past 50 years has been a failure like the war on drugs. Maybe it is time to change the failed policies that keep the poor in poverty and allow supply side economics to raise all boats.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

He hasn't proposed any plan to congress,

So, moron, anything that Trump placed on his website BEFORE the election was just bullshit? Did you then support the clown simply based on THAT bullshit?

What else do we have to go on but what Trump has PROPOSED?

Well a bi racial candidate ran on Hope and Change, did you support that clown simply based on THAT bullshit? BHWAhaaaaahhhaaaaahhhaaaa.

 

[AntonToo]

He hasn't proposed any plan to congress, that's the one that matters. You just hate the guy, you're not able to reason

Like I said , something really off with you.

I object current Trump plan, not because of anything personally about Trump, but because THE PLAN IS BAD.

If he at some point supports another plan I will more then gladly review it's merits, again, entirely separate form my feelings about Trump.

What is unfair or biased about my approach????

And let me ask you something, do you support CURRENT plan? ...don't run away now, grow some balls and answer directly.

 

[kaz]

He hasn't proposed any plan to congress,

So, moron, anything that Trump placed on his website BEFORE the election was just bullshit? Did you then support the clown simply based on THAT bullshit?

What else do we have to go on but what Trump has PROPOSED?

First of all, no, you ******* ******, I didn't support Trump at all. Why is my ideology and labeling it of such homosexual obsession with you? Still having the fantasies that filled your waking hours all along of walking through the woods and a bunch of Republicans go all Ned Beatty on you?

This just in, Kaz endorses ...

Why I will not now or ever advocate, argue for or endorse Trump

And seriously, you don't understand the difference between:

1) Sitting down and writing down all the policy things he'd like to do

2) Putting them down and balancing costs with revenues, trading off based on his priorities and analyzing the ability to get it through congress?

You and the greedy Antootoo who is obsessed with only money don't get that? You're sticking to it? You really, truly actually don't understand the difference? That is remarkable, you're as dumb as anyone on the board

 

[kaz]

He hasn't proposed any plan to congress, that's the one that matters. You just hate the guy, you're not able to reason

Like I said , something really off with you.

I object current Trump plan, not because of anything personally about Trump, but because THE PLAN IS BAD.

If he at some point supports another plan I will more then gladly review it's merits, again, entirely separate form my feelings about Trump.

What is unfair or biased about my approach????

And let me ask you something, do you support CURRENT plan? ...don't run away now, grow some balls and answer directly.

You don't understand the difference between:

1) Sitting down and writing down all the policy things he'd like to do

2) Putting them down and balancing costs with revenues, trading off based on his priorities and analyzing the ability to get it through congress?

You and the gay boy gnat who fantasizes about being told to squeal like a pig by Republicans don't get that? You're sticking to it? You really, truly actually don't understand the difference? That is remarkable, you're as dumb as anyone on the board

 

[hunarcy]

The Supreme Court never said "due process" is a legislative process, you're full of shit

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

Don't forget, Trump has to find a trillion dollars in new revenue for his infrastructure plan. You don't find that cutting revenues from taxes.

John Kennedy found that cutting tax rates brought in MORE money.

JFK's Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates

No they didn't. We had 2 billion dollar surplus in 1960. That was followed by 8 straight years of deficits,
until 1969, when we had a surplus.

Why did we have a surplus in 1969. Because the president and Congress imposed a 10% income tax surcharge,

to pay for the Vietnam War.

A History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States

I gave you a link to the NPR article and you obviously ignored it.

I gave you the mathematical facts. If you like Kennedy's marginal tax rates, then you should advocate for putting them back into place.

Of course I advocate for that. However, I will point out that we had a surplus in 1969 because we spent less than we took in...a 10% income tax surcharge wasn't the real issue, it was spending less and taking in more.