Why not a huge tax cut for the middle class

[Zander]

What is "the Middle class"?

Define it. Otherwise it's meaningless.

I guess you didn't finish grade school.

so define the middle class.

Oh goodie, you're trying to play that distraction game again. Better luck this time. LOL

What is the distraction? Define it for us. What is "the middle class" that all politicians pretend to love?

 

[jc456]

What is "the Middle class"?

Define it. Otherwise it's meaningless.

I guess you didn't finish grade school.

so define the middle class.

Oh goodie, you're trying to play that distraction game again. Better luck this time. LOL

so you can't define middle class. what is their current tax rate? you wish to discuss the tax bill let's make sure we talk apples to apples. so let's have the definition and rate.

 

[bendog]

What is "the Middle class"?

Define it. Otherwise it's meaningless.

I guess you didn't finish grade school.

so define the middle class.

Oh goodie, you're trying to play that distraction game again. Better luck this time. LOL

What is the distraction? Define it for us. What is "the middle class" that all politicians pretend to love?

A red herring. If Joyful Clown wants a definition of the middle class he can google it. What he wants is someone to define it for him, and then he will attack that definition to take a thread off track. His MO

 

[jc456]

What is "the Middle class"?

Define it. Otherwise it's meaningless.

I guess you didn't finish grade school.

so define the middle class.

Oh goodie, you're trying to play that distraction game again. Better luck this time. LOL

What is the distraction? Define it for us. What is "the middle class" that all politicians pretend to love?

that say aren't getting anything. what is it? what is the price range at? why are you all so afraid to define it? don't you want to expose the GOP?

 

[bendog]

PS because a strict consumption tax with no income tax is a regressive tax, most post-industrial economies have a combination of income tax, and rely on the consumption (or VAT) tax to allow them to reduce the corp tax rate so as to encourage production and export.

Not that I'd want to deflect a thread. LOL

 

[jc456]

What is "the Middle class"?

Define it. Otherwise it's meaningless.

I guess you didn't finish grade school.

so define the middle class.

Oh goodie, you're trying to play that distraction game again. Better luck this time. LOL

What is the distraction? Define it for us. What is "the middle class" that all politicians pretend to love?

A red herring. If Joyful Clown wants a definition of the middle class he can google it. What he wants is someone to define it for him, and then he will attack that definition to take a thread off track. His MO

no, you all are claiming he's ignoring them. so define who they are. BTW, I rest my case.

 

[jc456]

PS because a strict consumption tax with no income tax is a regressive tax, most post-industrial economies have a combination of income tax, and rely on the consumption (or VAT) tax to allow them to reduce the corp tax rate so as to encourage production and export.

Not that I'd want to deflect a thread. LOL

yeah why would we want to discuss the middle class on a thread about the middle class? that does seem unusual. we should talk about Roy Moore eh?

 

[Zander]

I'd love to see a clear definition of "the middle class" that Obama, Trump, and every other politician is "working for".

What are the income levels for Single, Married Filing jointly ,and Head of household?

Why is this such a perplexing question?

 

[RealDave]

Sop you think handing money to the wealthy will boost the economy & help the Middle Class?

When has it in the past?

We have seen this before. The year 2000. We had a budget surplus. The CBO said if we contained on that path we would pay off our national debt. A conservatives wet dream?

Al Gore said yes?

Unfortunately, George W Bush said no & he & his band of asshole Republicans took us from that surplus to the worse recession in 80 years. Tax cuts Tax cuts Tax cuts. Deficits. unfunded spending.

Now you asswipes want to do it all over again.

'Republicans are too stupid to learn.

When has it in the past?

Always. In fact, that is precisely the ONLY way it can work in a free market system. When wealthy people have more money to spend, they spend more money. When they spend more money, the middle class benefit. And it doesn't really matter HOW they spend it. Even if they don't directly spend it... like, if they just put it in a bank or invest it... the money still benefits the middle class who it is made available to in the form of loans.

Now.... We never had a surplus in 2000. That was a lie you were told by Democrats. It was based on a CBO estimate that never came true because of the DotCom bubble burst. If you don't believe me, go to www.taxpolicycenter.org/ and look at the official data for yourself. There is no year where our national debt decreased under Clinton. (i.e.; surplus) He came close in 2000, but still we ran a deficit and added to the national debt. AND... this was only close because of legislation passed under Bush Sr. which allowed the Social Security Trust Fund to be counted in the general budget. Take out the SSTF and our deficit would've been several billion higher.

No, the people "too stupid to learn" are people like you who ignore facts and data because you're too emotionally invested in the rhetoric of your failed political party.

OMG OMG OMG The Dot Comm bust!!!!!!!!!!!!

Give me a ******* break. You jackasses drag out that as an excuse for your party nearly killing this country?

And -please every major economist claims we had a balanced budget & a budget surplus. You denying it just identifies you as rhe typical ignorant whiner.

Let's look at what your party did to destroy that economy Bush inhereited.

Unfunded tax cuts

Tax cuts at a time of war.

Unfunded & mismanaged war in Afghanistan

Unfunded war in Iraq based on lies

Massive unfunded expansion to Medicare.

Years of deregulation to banking that led to a near financial meltdown.

Republicans did this.

Then you have the gall to blame Democrats.

 

[RealDave]

Sop you think handing money to the wealthy will boost the economy & help the Middle Class?

When has it in the past?

We have seen this before. The year 2000. We had a budget surplus. The CBO said if we contained on that path we would pay off our national debt. A conservatives wet dream?

Al Gore said yes?

Unfortunately, George W Bush said no & he & his band of asshole Republicans took us from that surplus to the worse recession in 80 years. Tax cuts Tax cuts Tax cuts. Deficits. unfunded spending.

Now you asswipes want to do it all over again.

'Republicans are too stupid to learn.

When has it in the past?

Always. In fact, that is precisely the ONLY way it can work in a free market system. When wealthy people have more money to spend, they spend more money. When they spend more money, the middle class benefit. And it doesn't really matter HOW they spend it. Even if they don't directly spend it... like, if they just put it in a bank or invest it... the money still benefits the middle class who it is made available to in the form of loans.

Now.... We never had a surplus in 2000. That was a lie you were told by Democrats. It was based on a CBO estimate that never came true because of the DotCom bubble burst. If you don't believe me, go to www.taxpolicycenter.org/ and look at the official data for yourself. There is no year where our national debt decreased under Clinton. (i.e.; surplus) He came close in 2000, but still we ran a deficit and added to the national debt. AND... this was only close because of legislation passed under Bush Sr. which allowed the Social Security Trust Fund to be counted in the general budget. Take out the SSTF and our deficit would've been several billion higher.

No, the people "too stupid to learn" are people like you who ignore facts and data because you're too emotionally invested in the rhetoric of your failed political party.

And BTW handing money to rich people to boost the economy is plain STUPID.

First, they won't spend it all because they are rich, if they wanted something, they likely already bought it.

Second, giving tax breaks to corporations do not make them run out & hire people. People & purchases are already tax deductible & you just gave the, less of a reason to spend it.

Third Corporations hire people when they have demand for their products & have things for new employees to do.

Fourth, giving tax breaks to people who will sped it increase that demand. Lower & middle class families spend that tax savings.

If you went to school , request a refund because you don't know shit about economics.

 

[Rambunctious]

Sop you think handing money to the wealthy will boost the economy & help the Middle Class?

When has it in the past?

No one is handing money to anyone. The government will be taking less money from people so they will spend and invest. Spending and investing is what makes the economy click.
Handing money to the poor is a life preserver and nothing more...if you want the nation to balance budgets and increase growth, bring more dollars into the government through growth... create more good jobs bring down interest rates like those that come with loan repayments like education loans then you have to allow the producers to thrive and keep more of their investment dollars.

Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?

It's been proven every time it's tried.

Oh you can find tax and economic history revision on the net but that's all it is history revision.

The regulations cleared away by Trump places more dollars into a businessman's hands and that businessman spends those dollars and that spending puts out of work people back to work. That newly employed person then pays income taxes.

It's the same with taxes.

A little story;
My wife belongs to a service club, they feed the homeless and they do food drives and things like that. I went with her to a rough neighborhood to help her deliver a Thanksgiving dinner to a few underprivileged families.
At the third door we knocked on a women answered and she was crying. We ask her what was wrong. She said she just got a job after searching for one for 4 years.

She has three kids under 6. She said her tears were tears of joy and relief.
What shocked me was what she said next, she said she thanks president Trump for her new job and she felt guilty for not voting for him and for bashing him for the last year.

She marched with BLM and protested Trumps election to relieve her anger towards him but now she can see how wrong she was.

We told her to give the credit to her self but she said no.

This job came about strictly because of the removal of an Obama regulation in her industry.

Do you understand? Do you get it at all? or do you just want to instinctively hate and whine?

 

[RealDave]

Sop you think handing money to the wealthy will boost the economy & help the Middle Class?

When has it in the past?

No one is handing money to anyone. The government will be taking less money from people so they will spend and invest. Spending and investing is what makes the economy click.
Handing money to the poor is a life preserver and nothing more...if you want the nation to balance budgets and increase growth, bring more dollars into the government through growth... create more good jobs bring down interest rates like those that come with loan repayments like education loans then you have to allow the producers to thrive and keep more of their investment dollars.

Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?

It's been proven every time it's tried.

Oh you can find tax and economic history revision on the net but that's all it is history revision.

The regulations cleared away by Trump places more dollars into a businessman's hands and that businessman spends those dollars and that spending puts out of work people back to work. That newly employed person then pays income taxes.

It's the same with taxes.

A little story;
My wife belongs to a service club, they feed the homeless and they do food drives and things like that. I went with her to a rough neighborhood to help her deliver a Thanks giving dinner to a few underprivileged families.
At the third door we knocked on a women answered and she was crying. We ask her what was wrong. She said she just got a job after searching for one for 4 years.

She has three kids under 6. She said her tears were tears of joy and relief.
What shocked me was what she said next, she said she thanks president Trump for her new job and she felt guilty for not voting for him and for bashing him for the last year.

She marched with BLM and protested Trumps election to relieve her anger towards him but now she can see how wrong she was.

We told her to give the credit to her self but she said no.

This job came about strictly because of the removal of an Obama regulation in her industry.

Do you understand? Do you get it at all? or do you just want to instinctively hate and whine?

Without the tax cuts Trump pays 25 million more.

With the tax cuts he pays 25 million less.

Who is responsible for this extra 25 million?

Trump & the dumbass Republicans.

They handed him that money.

Quit lying & pretending this is something else.

Quit arguing refund vs discount. The effect is the same.

 

[Rambunctious]

Without the tax cuts Trump pays 25 million more.

With the tax cuts he pays 25 million less.

Who is responsible for this extra 25 million?

Trump & the dumbass Republicans.

They handed him that money.

Quit lying & pretending this is something else.

Quit arguing refund vs discount. The effect is the same.

No I guess you won't get it...well maybe my post will help others. You are beyond help I'm afraid.

 

[RealDave]

Without the tax cuts Trump pays 25 million more.

With the tax cuts he pays 25 million less.

Who is responsible for this extra 25 million?

Trump & the dumbass Republicans.

They handed him that money.

Quit lying & pretending this is something else.

Quit arguing refund vs discount. The effect is the same.

No I guess you won't get it...well maybe my post will help others. You are beyond help I'm afraid.

I am right., You are wrong.

Companies do not expand & hire just because they have money. Rich people don't run out & spend more if you give them more money.

Lower & Middle class people will spend the bulk of that money.. They will buy food, clothing, cars, houses, etc & that will increase the demand & that will make companies hire more & expand.

It is called economics dumbass.

You will just run up the debt & the weathy will laugh their asses off at you.

 

[Rambunctious]

Companies do not expand & hire just because they have money. Rich people don't run out & spend more if you give them more money

Well now I see where your head is at...That is the stupidest sentence I've ever read. What does a business do with the extra money? put it in the freezer? Come on man, the public school system is bad but not that bad... you must recognize how dumb that thought is.
You heard some other idiot say that so you have adopted it into your lexicon but you could not be more wrong. Businesses don't earn money for fun, they earn money so they can grow the business. You can't grow a business by not reinvesting dollars and hiring good people and purchasing new equipment.

 

[Boss]

While we are all for a tax cut I find it questionable why the middle school tax cut isn't double what is in the bill. My daughter's taxes will increase some while others on each side go down. A sham. A lie. How about severely cutting middle class taxes?

The first and foremost error in assumptions here is that we tax based on class. This is simply a false paradigm that has been allowed to persist in the thinking of the general public for years. Our tax codes are based on earned incomes, not class. People earn incomes based on numerous variables and many of them are unrelated to social class. Some are related to education level or region of the country. Some are based on the nature of the work, if it's dangerous or highly demanded or specialized. Sometimes incomes are based on relative risks and odds. Sometimes, income is based on amount of time worked or number of jobs. In any event, there are no jobs where the rate of pay (income) is determined by the person's social class because we do not have a caste system in our country.

So what you are talking about are incomes which fall in the range of "average" or "median" in relation to all incomes earned. The problem with this dynamic is that incomes aren't of the same value nationwide. A person who earns $38k as a dishwasher in Los Angeles is probably not living a very high lifestyle but someone who is earning $38k as manager of a mobile home park in Pearl, MS, with his housing provided, is doing fairly well in his community. In both cases, the $38k income is treated the same as far as the tax code and neither person is paying very much (if any) Federal income tax.

When it comes to cutting taxes, we have to avoid looking at this from the false paradigm of class because the variables differ from person to person. You can be a multi-billionaire and only earn $38k income for the year... are you "middle class" because of that? We don't tax WEALTH... we tax INCOME.

I personally favor elimination of income tax altogether and replace it with a consumption tax instead. It should be obvious that "wealthy" people are going to spend more money consuming goods and services than anyone else in our society. Therefore, such a system would automatically put the bulk of the tax burden on those with the highest wealth, regardless of income earned. On the flip side, people who are poor are clipping coupons, doing without the finer things in life, stretching their budgets, buying clothes at the thrift stores... they naturally consume less and would pay the least amount of taxes under such a plan. It has even been proposed that we could implement a prebate program to offset the taxes on basic needs for poor people. In other words, their basic consumption wouldn't be taxed at all. But a consumption tax would be a much better and fairer way to collect the necessary taxes needed to fund the government. And it would eliminate the class warfare rhetoric once and for all.

Yet the more wealthy spend less a % of income on goods than do lesser earners. So, in effect, your plan would simply redistribute what little wealth is held by those of lesser means.

Yet the more wealthy spend less a % of income on goods than do lesser earners.

1) Where do you get that from. And 2.) Why does that matter?

You see, I totally disagree with your assumption. I've already explained that we don't tax wealth, we tax income. You have no way of knowing how much % of income a wealthy person spends versus another person. What if the wealthy person is a miser and doesn't earn much income, just lives off the interest from his wealth? What if the "middle class" person takes out a $50k loan and buys a big boat he can't afford? You see... there's no way to discern by income who is spending the most on goods, it can vary greatly.

And why should THAT be the basis of who pays more in tax? Especially since the plan I proposed would have a built-in prebate to compensate lower income families for their basic expenses. The only taxation they would have would be consumption of things above and beyond necessities. Why would that be more acceptable for some and not for others?

So, in effect, your plan would simply redistribute what little wealth is held by those of lesser means.

No, there is no redistribution of wealth, we're talking about paying for the government. You seem to be the one intent on redistribution and you want a system whereby no one has any incentive to earn more income than they absolutely need to survive... because you're going to take that from them if they do. And let me tell you what happens in that system... people become depressed and despair sets in. The crushing hopelessness kills the human spirit and will to thrive. As this happens, the economy begins to tank, productivity and quality begin to decline. Then the government becomes desperate as the money dries up and they can't afford to feed the hungry masses. Next comes the mass graves and genocide. This has happened over and over and over in history.

 

[deanrd]

While we are all for a tax cut I find it questionable why the middle school tax cut isn't double what is in the bill. My daughter's taxes will increase some while others on each side go down. A sham. A lie. How about severely cutting middle class taxes?

Because that's not the Republican way.

Besides, they have needy billionaires to worry about.

 

[Zander]

Without the tax cuts Trump pays 25 million more.

With the tax cuts he pays 25 million less.

Who is responsible for this extra 25 million?

Trump & the dumbass Republicans.

They handed him that money.

Quit lying & pretending this is something else.

Quit arguing refund vs discount. The effect is the same.

No I guess you won't get it...well maybe my post will help others. You are beyond help I'm afraid.

I am right., You are wrong.

Companies do not expand & hire just because they have money. Rich people don't run out & spend more if you give them more money.

Lower & Middle class people will spend the bulk of that money.. They will buy food, clothing, cars, houses, etc & that will increase the demand & that will make companies hire more & expand.

It is called economics dumbass.

You will just run up the debt & the weathy will laugh their asses off at you.

You must have attended the Nancy Pelosi school of economics!!

 

[initforme]

Although I never subscribed to it...I am changing my way of thinking....class division is growing and is acceptable now in america.

 

[task0778]

Although I never subscribed to it...I am changing my way of thinking....class division is growing and is acceptable now in america.

Acceptable to who? It's one thing to despise a guy like Bernie Madoff, who lied, cheated, and conned so many people out of their money to enrich himself. It's another to hate a guy like Steve Jobs just because he was rich.