ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Final Tax Plan Thoughts

Like I said, removing the mandate makes the ACA worse, not better. It absolutely has It's flaws. Major flaws. There are things that can be done to improve the law and make it better for Americans, but instead of doing that, this is an effort to further sabotage the ACA and make it worse in hopes that it fails. If it does, who pays the price? What do you think the likelihood is that another bill is crafted to replace it? Next to none. We just saw that the Republicans can't get it done with both houses and the Presidency.

I would venture to guess that if you are buying insurance today through an exchange, whatever you got in tax savings was easily wiped out by the proportionate increase you will see in your insurance premium.

Responsible people who don't want to go without insurance are who this bill hurts. We can do better with healthcare. Way better. But we can't do better with the partisan politics we have in Washington today. This bill makes something bad even worse.

I definitely agree that both sides need to come together and work on an actual good solution. Unfortunately Washington has become so partisan that it’s impossible to get some long term solutions done on a lot of issues because career politicians on both sides are more interested in keeping their plush government gigs then actually deal with complex issues, so they settle for cheap short term solutions that cater to their base (such as attaching the mandate to this tax bill for the Republicans, or the Obama base refusing to acknowledge or address most of the shortcomings in Obamacare while they were in office). Also there’s plenty of corruption to go around when it comes to government, it’s not one-sided.

I’m not disagreeing with you that this was a stupid move or that people who still have insurance aren’t going to be suffering from this with price increases, but I also think it’s not being realistic to say that Obamacare is viable for a lot of families right now either. It’s crappy expensive insurance that 13 million people don’t want (and are sure as heck not saving $500-1000 a year) but are being forced to have.
 
Repatriation Tax Holiday was tried in 2004 and is failed policy. Billions bought back, billions of dollars of stock buybacks and 20,000 less jobs from the companies that brought it back.

Corporate Tax cut will be largely the same. Billions saved that could have helped the deficit or actually people instead for billions of stock buybacks and likely no real job growth.

Wells Fargo CEO said what they would do with their tax cut...his answer stock buybacks. Many others have said the same.

We are basically growing the deficit by a trillion for stock buybacks for large corporations.
 
I am speaking for myself, you putz. This is a thread about how we feel about the tax bill. I stated my opinions and told some people where I thought their facts were not correct.
Putz...nice

When you use the term "we" you got away from speaking for YOU.
 
This tax "plan" is nothing more than a faster vehicle to achieve a greater disparity in wage inequality. A few posters have the correct grasp of what's going on here. A tax plan designed to compensate big business (free up more cash) via buybacks is a number 1 priority since this decade now dwarfs any before it, and appears to be ramping up again, especially since the fed has increased another quarter percent. Big corporations in bed with big government has put the carrot in our faces and it seems most are trying to nibble while missing the big picture, again.
 
@scotchtiger

SOME THINK THERE IS A DECENT CHANCE THAT:
  • THERE WILL BE NO STIPULATION AS TO HOW THE CORPORATE TAX SAVINGS ARE SPENT.
  • YES, SOME ARE REINVESTED BUT A GOOD CHUNK GOES TO THE ELITE EXECS AND SHAREHOLDERS
  • WE PILE UP MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF NATIONAL DEBT WHILE INCOME INEQUALITY SOARS
  • INDIVIDUAL CUTS EXPIRE IN 2025 AND ARE NOT RENEWED
  • AT THE SAME TIME, CORPORATE RATES REMAIN AT THE SAME
  • TAXES ARE EVEN HIGHER IN 2026 FOR INDIVIDUALS B/C NATIONAL DEBT IS NOW 100% OF GDP
DOOMSDAY SCENARIO FOR SURE, BUT IT COULD HAPPEN.

ENTITLEMENTS ARE A PROBLEM. BUT SO IS MILITARY SPENDING. IT'S FUNNY THAT THE MILITARY HAD TO HAVE ANOTHER 60 BILLION BUT WE CAN'T FIND MONEY FOR THE CHIP PROGRAM (THIS IS A PROGRAM FOR KIDS. KIDS SHOULD BE LEFT OUT OF THIS BS - THEY CAN'T HELP IT).

I AM PRETTY HAPPY THAT I'M GETTING MORE OF MY MONEY IN MY POCKET. I JUST WONDER WHY WE NEED THIS SO BADLY, RIGHT NOW. THE MARKET IS ROARING, CORP PROFITS ARE HEALTHY, UNEMPLOYMENT IS REALLY LOW. I JUST CAN'T SEE WHY WE'RE MAKING A 1-2 TRILLION GAMBLE RIGHT NOW....
Why do you think markets are soaring? Because of the favorable regulatory environment and the anticipation of a TAX CUT.
 
Repatriation Tax Holiday was tried in 2004 and is failed policy. Billions bought back, billions of dollars of stock buybacks and 20,000 less jobs from the companies that brought it back.

Corporate Tax cut will be largely the same. Billions saved that could have helped the deficit or actually people instead for billions of stock buybacks and likely no real job growth.

Wells Fargo CEO said what they would do with their tax cut...his answer stock buybacks. Many others have said the same.

We are basically growing the deficit by a trillion for stock buybacks for large corporations.

VERY well said!
Or, another way to put it is, we (the public/government) socialize the risk but privatize the profits, by LAW!
 
Don't care about specifics as far as having a totally corrupt government hell bent on finding any reason to thwart this POTUS agenda whether it's good for us or not. We got something through the black hole of the Senate so I count it a small victory in the war against the Left Wing onslaught.
This make believe sham of a government doesn't represent or serve the people and has nothing to do with the rule of law anymore. If you don't understand that, you're just another sheep in the herd.
 
JUST WANT TO REITERATE A COMMON THEORY ON THIS:

OUR TAX CUTS COULD EASILY MAKE NATIONAL DEBT 100% OF GDP. THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING. BECAUSE THIS IS BAD, THE TAX CUTS WILL NOT BE RENEWED IN 2026....BC OUR COUNTRY NEEDS REVENUE. MEANWHILE CORP TAX RATES HAVE BEEN SLASHED BUT ONLY A SMALL FRACTION HAS GONE INTO OUR POCKETS. OH, AS A REMINDER THOSE CORP TAX RATES DONT HAVE AN EXPIRATION LIKE OURS.

AGAIN JUST A THEORY.

LIKE EVERYONE HERE, I HATE TAXES. BUT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE NECESSARY TO LIVE OUR LIFESTYLE. WE REPLACE 80 YEAR OLD KNEES AND TOSS BILLIONS OF DOD MONEY AROUND LIKE ITS MONOPOLY CASH.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1Clemzunfan
Good article here about the tax dollars and where the benefit goes from this plan. I picked this article because there are plenty of charts for those that don't like to, or can't, read.

Also, the Tax policy center has now said the compromised bill will cost $1.5 Trillion, not $1 Trillion. If they extend the tax breaks for individuals as they say they expect to do, we are well over $2 Trillion.

Meanwhile, we will now see them take aim at Medicare and Social Security in the name of deficit reduction. Just remember this $2 Trillion dollar add on to the deficit for the rich when discussions begin about the need to scale back the healthcare and basic SS benefits of the average working American. Ask yourself, who doesn't rely on SS and Medicare? The answer is the same folks who benefited most from this tax bill. Essentially, any reform in spending for Medicare and SS will be used to offset this tax break for the wealthy. We are watching them essentially still from the poor and the working class and give to the rich. And many of you are too blind to see it for what it is and will vote for these crooks because of blind party loyalty.
 
Good article here about the tax dollars and where the benefit goes from this plan. I picked this article because there are plenty of charts for those that don't like to, or can't, read.

Also, the Tax policy center has now said the compromised bill will cost $1.5 Trillion, not $1 Trillion. If they extend the tax breaks for individuals as they say they expect to do, we are well over $2 Trillion.

Meanwhile, we will now see them take aim at Medicare and Social Security in the name of deficit reduction. Just remember this $2 Trillion dollar add on to the deficit for the rich when discussions begin about the need to scale back the healthcare and basic SS benefits of the average working American. Ask yourself, who doesn't rely on SS and Medicare? The answer is the same folks who benefited most from this tax bill. Essentially, any reform in spending for Medicare and SS will be used to offset this tax break for the wealthy. We are watching them essentially still from the poor and the working class and give to the rich. And many of you are too blind to see it for what it is and will vote for these crooks because of blind party loyalty.

Something something it's not a give away to the wealthy because they're just keeping their money? Taxation is theft?
 
FLaw47, you stated cuts to the program. I merely referred to the article you linked stating that improper and wasteful spending would be the target of cuts. Where is the problem with that? I don't share your apparent belief that the government need be the controller of all things good in our country. I also accept responsibility for what my needs may be later in life and am planning not to rely on government programs. That doesn't mean elimination of programs for those that are truly needy and incapable of faring for themselves.

N---
Also don't plan on "relying" on government programs, it would be foolish to do so, at this point. certainly there is waste available to cut, its government...but what about the money that has been taken from my earnings over all these years? Should I not expect to receive that benefit when I am eligible? The government has most certainly felt at liberty to use it as they see fit or borrow agai
At the end of the day it is still a very bad deal for the American people. The average American is getting a tax cut that will not significantly impact their lives. Meanwhile we are adding over $1 trillion to the national debt when the vast majority of that $1 trillion in debt will simply find its way to the pockets of the top 1%.

I approve of corporate tax cuts, because they were needed and have potential to drive investment. Corporate tax rates were too high. But the tax cuts for corporations were not structured in a way to ensure investment in America or American workers. Its no different than NAFTA, etc. that heavily benefited the wealthy and CEOs and left the American worker holding the bag.

And how does Trump campaign hard to eliminate the carried interest loop hole that only benefits hedge fund managers and the like because it was obscenely bad and then leave the loop hole in place? It's one of the things I was on board with him about, but he didn't carry through. I'll tell you how, those hedge fund managers threw him a $100k per plate fund raiser in NYC and stroked his ego. This is a loop hole that will save some individuals over $100 million annually for a single tax payer! And the average American is supposed to be excited about a few hundred bucks or even a grand?

Here is what we should have done if we were going to add $1 Trillion to the debt. Instead of sending the vast majority of that money to the wealthy we should have invested in infrastucture that is sorely lacking. Public investment outside of defense is at the lowest it has been in 6 decades. The World Bank just looked at the world's top 50 countries and found that the U.S. will have the largest unmet infrastructure needs over the next 20 years of any country it looked at. Our economy will be at a severe disadvantage as a result.

Meanwhile R&D spending by the U.S. is at an all time low as a percentage of GDP. It's what has allowed us to lead the world's economies but we are now spending at a miniscule rate in that area as a federal government. Meanwhile the Chinese, South Korean and German governments are ramping up their R&D spending in technology and biomedical research as well as infrastructure that will enhance their ability to attract investment and create new economies for their people.

If the White House or the republicans wanted to really benefit the American worker and not just scratch the backs of the wealthy campaign donors they could have invested that $1 Trillion in America's future. Infrastructure spending would have directly been tied to American job creation and increased wages. Our highways, bridges and electrical grid could have seen huge upgrades in the process, setting us up to be more competitive with the rest of the world. We could have increased technology infrastructure and made a real difference for not just busnesses but the American public.

Instead, we have further sabotaged the Affordable Care Act which already had major flaws that needed repair and Americans will pay even more for skyrocketing health insurance due to elimination of the mandate instead of fixing healthcare. 13 million Americans who may save $500 to $1,000 will have no insurance as a reward. Premiums for those who do will increase.

The vast majority of these tax cuts go to the very wealthy. We will now see Congress turn their eyes to make even deeper cuts in R&D, continue to punt infrastructure, and will eventually see them take aim at Social Security and Medicare in the name of cutting spending and reducing the deficit. A deficit they just added $1 Trillion dollars to with this tax cut plan!

I would gladly let them keep my measly tax cut if it m Robert Mercer would not be walking away with a 8 to 9 digit tax savings above and beyond what he should. My little bit of tax savings from this bill would go much further if it was invested along with the other $1 Trillion in meaningful infrastructure and technology upgrades we sorely need. Or better yet if it meant drastic social security and Medicare cuts to programs that millions of Americans depend on could be avoided or lessened. Now that the elite have their tax cut at the expense of adding over $1 Trillion to the debt, they'll become hawkish on the deficit and target those programs that are essential to millions upon millions.

When Social Security and Medicare benefits are drastically cut, remember this $1 Trillion dollars and remember those hedge fund managers who were paying $100k per plate to wine and dine Trump. Remember the billionaire Koch brothers who will never need a drop of social security or Medicare but will bank millions upon millions from this tax deal.
So very spot on.
 
I was replying to someone who said there was no plan to cut spending there. If you think that those areas could use cuts then cutting them probably does make sense. I'd prefer for us to have a single payer system so the cuts don't sound as good to me. I'd much rather cut our military spending than Medicare.
Yeah...Americans have always preferred to cut the military in the name of "savings." Right up to the point they need the military. Lots of soldiers never came home because we were not prepared...WWI, North Africa in WWIi, Korea prior to the Inchon landing, Vietnam, Desert One mission in Iran for recent examples.
 
This article shows who all gets what tax break, on average.

Like I said, it goes very disproportionately to the wealthy and that's not a good enough reason to blow up the deficit (in my estimation).

Families earning between $500k and $1M see a 4.3% increase in take home pay and over $1M sees 3.3%. $50k-$75k sees a 1.6% increase. Every bracket below that sees progressively smaller benefits.
 
This article shows who all gets what tax break, on average.

Like I said, it goes very disproportionately to the wealthy and that's not a good enough reason to blow up the deficit (in my estimation).

Families earning between $500k and $1M see a 4.3% increase in take home pay and over $1M sees 3.3%. $50k-$75k sees a 1.6% increase. Every bracket below that sees progressively smaller benefits.

FLaw47, Maybe you've seen this, maybe not. But it explains in simpler terms why you should not look at a tax cut as a benefit especially a greater benefit to those who already pay at a much higher rate. The logic bears that out.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so - the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."
 
FLaw47, Maybe you've seen this, maybe not. But it explains in simpler terms why you should not look at a tax cut as a benefit especially a greater benefit to those who already pay at a much higher rate. The logic bears that out.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so - the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

Sorry, I did not find Sarah Huckabee Sander's antidote particularly compelling.

It also pretends we're somewhere close to the peak of the notorious Laffer Curve but there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that's true. Otherwise we would have seen a tax cut pay for itself at some point in our country's history.

I think that the wealthy benefit from our Government as much or more than the middle and lower class. I think that they can better afford to pay taxes than the poor. I think that the government needs a certain amount of revenue to operate. I do not think that we need to be penalizing our middle and lower class (through reduced services or some debt induced calamity) for the benefit of the people who won't even notice their 3% pay raise. Their lives will not change in any meaningful way because of that increased income but a 70 year old who wasn't able to (or responsible enough, depending on your viewpoint) to live on much other than Social Security will definitely be affected by a reduction in that service.
 
$50k-$75k sees a 1.6% increase. Every bracket below that sees progressively smaller benefits.

That's because those folks barely pay any taxes. It's hard to give them massive tax breaks when they aren't paying much to begin with. My example yesterday showed that the $75K family of 4 only paid 2% of their income in taxes. Hard to go much lower than that...
 
  • Like
Reactions: CLT-Tiger
Sorry, I did not find Sarah Huckabee Sander's antidote particularly compelling.

It also pretends we're somewhere close to the peak of the notorious Laffer Curve but there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that's true. Otherwise we would have seen a tax cut pay for itself at some point in our country's history.

I think that the wealthy benefit from our Government as much or more than the middle and lower class. I think that they can better afford to pay taxes than the poor. I think that the government needs a certain amount of revenue to operate. I do not think that we need to be penalizing our middle and lower class (through reduced services or some debt induced calamity) for the benefit of the people who won't even notice their 3% pay raise. Their lives will not change in any meaningful way because of that increased income but a 70 year old who wasn't able to (or responsible enough, depending on your viewpoint) to live on much other than Social Security will definitely be affected by a reduction in that service.

keep pushing that idea but every single tax cut in history had lead to an increase in taxes, semantics aside. That is a fact.

N---
 
Good article here about the tax dollars and where the benefit goes from this plan. I picked this article because there are plenty of charts for those that don't like to, or can't, read.

Also, the Tax policy center has now said the compromised bill will cost $1.5 Trillion, not $1 Trillion. If they extend the tax breaks for individuals as they say they expect to do, we are well over $2 Trillion.

Meanwhile, we will now see them take aim at Medicare and Social Security in the name of deficit reduction. Just remember this $2 Trillion dollar add on to the deficit for the rich when discussions begin about the need to scale back the healthcare and basic SS benefits of the average working American. Ask yourself, who doesn't rely on SS and Medicare? The answer is the same folks who benefited most from this tax bill. Essentially, any reform in spending for Medicare and SS will be used to offset this tax break for the wealthy. We are watching them essentially still from the poor and the working class and give to the rich. And many of you are too blind to see it for what it is and will vote for these crooks because of blind party loyalty.

Two things:

Most of the folks receiving nominal benefits already pay very low % taxes. I used the example of the $75K family of 4 yesterday. They pay around $3500 today and will pay around $1500 under the new bill. Huge percentage reduction relative to their tax bill, but small relative to their income because they are already paying an extremely low tax rate.

People depend on SS and Medicare because the entitlement system and mentality has set it up that way. The government shouldn't be involved in funding your retirement. That's the problem, not one party trying to reform a broken entitlement program.
 
That's because those folks barely pay any taxes. It's hard to give them massive tax breaks when they aren't paying much to begin with. My example yesterday showed that the $75K family of 4 only paid 2% of their income in taxes. Hard to go much lower than that...

Fair point; that's part of why I don't think we need a tax cut right now.
 
I think that they can better afford to pay taxes than the poor.

Right, but at what point do we share in the responsibility together? The $75K family from yesterday pays 2% while the $1 million family pays 29%. That million dollar family will pay over 193 times as much in taxes compared to the $75K family, despite only making 13 times more money.

We all agree that the wealthy can afford more. The point is that they already pay significantly more - both in real dollars and percentage of income. This bill doesn't all of a sudden change that fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nealchick
Fair point; that's part of why I don't think we need a tax cut right now.

The "right now" part is forced because the left will never consider cutting taxes. They want to raise taxes, increase spending and add to entitlements. Since we know that to be true, the Republicans are forced to act while they control Congress and the Presidency.
 
The "right now" part is forced because the left will never consider cutting taxes. They want to raise taxes, increase spending and add to entitlements. Since we know that to be true, the Republicans are forced to act while they control Congress and the Presidency.

They're allegedly the party of responsible governance and cutting taxes without cutting spending sounds pretty damned irresponsible to me.

You're right though; I do want increased entitlements. For a first world country, we pay pretty low taxes. I'd rather us pay more and have more of a safety net. I know that we don't all agree on that but that's where I stand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SCSportsman
Two things:

Most of the folks receiving nominal benefits already pay very low % taxes. I used the example of the $75K family of 4 yesterday. They pay around $3500 today and will pay around $1500 under the new bill. Huge percentage reduction relative to their tax bill, but small relative to their income because they are already paying an extremely low tax rate.

People depend on SS and Medicare because the entitlement system and mentality has set it up that way. The government shouldn't be involved in funding your retirement. That's the problem, not one party trying to reform a broken entitlement program.
Can we all agree that SS is not an entitlement in the way that I have paid it every single check since I was 15 years old and nobody asked if I would like to?? I didn't start it, I didn't choose to perpetuate it, but I damn sure expect to get it back, foolishly at this point...Either way, I am all for trying to eliminate waste, wherever it may need and to eliminate welfare dependence through lack of need beyond those that can't help themselves, but I don't accept that SS is an "entitlement" Its mine, give it to me now or give it to me later, but the fact that it has been squandered doesn't mean I squandered it...The Government chose to "help" me, by holding it, not otherwise.
 
You're right though; I do want increased entitlements. For a first world country, we pay pretty low taxes. I'd rather us pay more and have more of a safety net. I know that we don't all agree on that but that's where I stand.

Yea, we just philosophically disagree. I'd rather people be personally responsible for their well-being, while ensuring that children and the physically and mentally incapable have a safety net. They can't help their situation. Able-bodied adults of sound mind can.

Do you agree with Bernie and Hillary that we should add free college to the list of government sponsored entitlements? That's not a safety net, but is an example of the left wanting to expand this area of government.
 
Can we all agree that SS is not an entitlement in the way that I have paid it every single check since I was 15 years old and nobody asked if I would like to?? I didn't start it, I didn't choose to perpetuate it, but I damn sure expect to get it back, foolishly at this point...Either way, I am all for trying to eliminate waste, wherever it may need and to eliminate welfare dependence through lack of need beyond those that can't help themselves, but I don't accept that SS is an "entitlement" Its mine, give it to me now or give it to me later, but the fact that it has been squandered doesn't mean I squandered it...The Government chose to "help" me, by holding it, not otherwise.

Yes, agreed. SS is basically just a ponzi scheme that has been poorly managed and you are hoping not to get Madoff'd. Just wait - the left will push for means testing and will force people who have contributed their entire lives out of the benefit pool...
 
Plan apparently saves me $5,200/year but I am not in favor of anything adding more debt. I also am extremely disappointed they've done nothing with healthcare. If this tax bill does away with the mandatory health insurance and costs rise more, something has to give there. The extra $5,200/year is just going to medical bills because deductibles are so outrageous.
 
Two things:

Most of the folks receiving nominal benefits already pay very low % taxes. I used the example of the $75K family of 4 yesterday. They pay around $3500 today and will pay around $1500 under the new bill. Huge percentage reduction relative to their tax bill, but small relative to their income because they are already paying an extremely low tax rate.

People depend on SS and Medicare because the entitlement system and mentality has set it up that way. The government shouldn't be involved in funding your retirement. That's the problem, not one party trying to reform a broken entitlement program.
And I would rather not see anyone get a tax cut until we can afford it. Don't give the family making $75,000 a tax cut of $2k and don't give the $100million CEO a multi-million dollar tax cut if we are going to add $1.5 TRILLION to the deficit to do it. It's common sense.

I'm not opposed to a cut in the corporate rate, but it needs to be done in conjunction with legislation to ensure those tax savings are reinvested in America and the American economy and worker and not just stock buy backs and increased executive pay. This bill doesn't do that.

Better yet, and as I I posted yesterday, if we are going to borrow $1.5 TRILLION it should be invested in infrastructure, R&D, specialized job training programs, etc. All of those are things that will drive our economy, create jobs, drive up wages, create new business, etc. The best way to attack the deficit is to shrink it relative to GDP growth. Debt is a relative thing. Drive up GDP and you lower your debt ratio.

The last thing we need to do is pass (more like flush) the bulk of the $1.5 TRILLION that we are borrowing to wealthy people who don't need it and to foreign investors through stock buy backs. And the most criminal thing we can do is leverage social security and Medicare to pay for it, which is what is going to happen next.
 
Also wealthy people will and already have benefited from the stock market rally built off expanding the deficit off the promise and now the fulfilled promise of a corporate tax cut that will go to buybacks and increased dividends to shareholders.

I will benefit significantly (more than the cut itself) off this portion of the deal, but I don’t need the government indirectly providing me with more welfare than a person who actually is on welfare and needs it for their kids to eat.

This is welfare. No different than giving it to poor people except this time to corporations.
 
Yea, we just philosophically disagree. I'd rather people be personally responsible for their well-being, while ensuring that children and the physically and mentally incapable have a safety net. They can't help their situation. Able-bodied adults of sound mind can.

Do you agree with Bernie and Hillary that we should add free college to the list of government sponsored entitlements? That's not a safety net, but is an example of the left wanting to expand this area of government.

I do not believe in free college for everyone, no. It was probably my biggest philosophical disagreement with Sanders (I had practical concerns with him; I doubt he'd have been effective at governing).

On your first point; I don't think "personal responsibility" will get someone nearly as far as you do. Social mobility is very low in this country. While I think that it's certainly possible to have such incredible work ethic that you can "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" (and that those individuals should be applauded), I do not think it's fair that a person on average work ethic and ability should be doomed to a life of poverty (by US standards) simply because their parents were also poor. I do not think that the poor in the United States are just congenitally lazier than the wealthy.

As a person whose parents are well off and who had a privileged upbringing and an only average work ethic, I am basically guaranteed a very comfortable life. I was provided opportunities that most people in this country never get. I also happen to be quite intelligent and had more than a full ride to Clemson.

I don't feel like I did anything to deserve where I am in life. Like I said, I have what I'd consider to be roughly average work ethic. As such, it really grinds at me that someone of similar determination but less means has to worry about going bankrupt if they ever require a surgery (for example). I don't think that the government can fix social mobility with the snap of a finger but I do think that we can collectively ensure that everyone has access to basic healthcare and a limited income when they're too old to work productively. I believe that where we are in life is a result of luck more than anything else and, as such, am happy to "sacrifice" some of my wealth and earnings to a system that protects those of who weren't as lucky as I am.

Note: I specifically support these being government programs because they are going to be more stable and robust than charities that rely on voluntary donations.
 
And I would rather not see anyone get a tax cut until we can afford it. Don't give the family making $75,000 a tax cut of $2k and don't give the $100million CEO a multi-million dollar tax cut if we are going to add $1.5 TRILLION to the deficit to do it. It's common sense.

I'm not opposed to a cut in the corporate rate, but it needs to be done in conjunction with legislation to ensure those tax savings are reinvested in America and the American economy and worker and not just stock buy backs and increased executive pay. This bill doesn't do that.

Better yet, and as I I posted yesterday, if we are going to borrow $1.5 TRILLION it should be invested in infrastructure, R&D, specialized job training programs, etc. All of those are things that will drive our economy, create jobs, drive up wages, create new business, etc. The best way to attack the deficit is to shrink it relative to GDP growth. Debt is a relative thing. Drive up GDP and you lower your debt ratio.

The last thing we need to do is pass (more like flush) the bulk of the $1.5 TRILLION that we are borrowing to wealthy people who don't need it and to foreign investors through stock buy backs. And the most criminal thing we can do is leverage social security and Medicare to pay for it, which is what is going to happen next.

The bill certainly isn't perfect and I don't disagree with a number of your points. Heck, I might be one of the few republicans who thinks there should be an individual mandate. Why should an uninsured person be able to rely on my premiums/taxes to bail them out? I also agree that we need more investment in most of the areas that you mentioned.

I also would have supported additional limits on the "$100 million CEO" example group. Carried interest, etc. I fundamentally believe that the tax code was broken for the upper-middle to $1 million families though, and this bill makes an unreasonable tax structure slightly more reasonable. I'm happy about that.

I'm interested to see what additional legislation is brought forward to address some of these areas. Knowing they were up against the clock, perhaps some items were merely postponed rather than ignored?
 
Yes, agreed. SS is basically just a ponzi scheme that has been poorly managed and you are hoping not to get Madoff'd. Just wait - the left will push for means testing and will force people who have contributed their entire lives out of the benefit pool...
@scotchtiger at some point you've got to just consider yourself blessed and quit stressing over whether a 70 year old with $50 in their bank account who is relying on meals on wheels for food has paid an equitable percentage to you for their SS and Medicare benefit.

The mean savings of the average family in this country is $5000. The mean savings of the average family 32-37 in age is $500. Again, that is the mean and that includes every single dime to their name including 401k if they have one. The bottom third don't have that. I don't think you realize how the average American lives. We are blessed, not burdened.

I am not rich, but I am making a good living for myself. I grew up poor and know what it is like to struggle. Ones wealth and prosperity is not 100% within their control like you seem to think. I recognize I was blessed with talents, intelligence, opportunities, and abilities that the average person doesn't have. I am thankful for that. I recognize I have a greater burden to bare in exchange for what I have been blessed with. Its why I believe in a progressive tax code and not a flat tax. To he whom much is given, much is expected.

I have a lot of employees who work for me. They do jobs I wouldn't want to do for salaries I wouldn't want to do them for, but I have been there and done it. I appreciate it. I understand that for most of them they are doing the best they are capable of. I was able to work my way up, but I recognize the vast, vast majority of them don't have the ability to do what I have done or if they do maybe they have encountered bad breaks with health, or bad luck, or no family or a bad family... all things that I wasn't burdened with. But I appreciate their contributions and realize I couldn't enjoy the success I do without them. I count my blessings.

There are a lot of people out there who take advantage of others. There are a lot of them on SS and Medicare who have taken advantage of the system. I despise them. But I realize it is not the vast majority. The majority of people who truly rely on SS and Medicare need it and they didn't cheat anybody. They aren't getting a better deal in life than you if you are doing great financially.
 
Last edited:
Plan apparently saves me $5,200/year but I am not in favor of anything adding more debt. I also am extremely disappointed they've done nothing with healthcare. If this tax bill does away with the mandatory health insurance and costs rise more, something has to give there. The extra $5,200/year is just going to medical bills because deductibles are so outrageous.

maybe the democrats will come to the table to negotiate?
 
The bill certainly isn't perfect and I don't disagree with a number of your points. Heck, I might be one of the few republicans who thinks there should be an individual mandate. Why should an uninsured person be able to rely on my premiums/taxes to bail them out? I also agree that we need more investment in most of the areas that you mentioned.

I also would have supported additional limits on the "$100 million CEO" example group. Carried interest, etc. I fundamentally believe that the tax code was broken for the upper-middle to $1 million families though, and this bill makes an unreasonable tax structure slightly more reasonable. I'm happy about that.

I'm interested to see what additional legislation is brought forward to address some of these areas. Knowing they were up against the clock, perhaps some items were merely postponed rather than ignored?
Given that we see eye to eye on so much with how this bill should have been structured, how can you turn a blind eye and support it? The bulk of the $1.5 TRILLION this bill is going to cost in add-on to the debt is being flushed on the very aspects of the bill you like least.

You, like me, would like to see that money invested in America. So why settle for a bill that is 80% flawed just because it secures us a little bit more of our own money. We would be much better off to give up our tax cut and prevent that waste. The cost of this bill long term far outweighs the benefits we will see from it.
 
On your first point; I don't think "personal responsibility" will get someone nearly as far as you do. Social mobility is very low in this country. While I think that it's certainly possible to have such incredible work ethic that you can "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" (and that those individuals should be applauded), I do not think it's fair that a person on average work ethic and ability should be doomed to a life of poverty (by US standards) simply because their parents were also poor.

I skimmed the article and it seems to focus on where you start in your career and then where you end, not the affect on the next generation. My great-grandfather didn't end his career significantly more wealthy than he began it, but his son did a bit better. And then my grandfather didn't end his career significantly more wealthy than he began it, but his son (my dad) did quite a bit better (after being the first in his family to go to college, at Clemson). And on and on.

Heck, I made very little money early on in my career, but do quite well now. Is that "social mobility?" I just don't think the article captures what's important.

If your parents didn't push you in school or you just didn't put forth the effort or whatever the case, you have the ability to change that for your children regardless of income. Teach them how to be good people. Teach them work ethic. Teach them manners. Teach them that learning and knowledge is important. Help them learn from your mistakes.

I spent time with a 1st grade class at a Title I school yesterday. We had lunch and my team handed out gifts. We had snacks and they read us their favorite books. If their parents teach them the important things, stay active in their life and ensure that they take school and learning seriously, there is no reason that they should need safety net programs to survive this world. The teacher was great and the asst. principal was very engaged with the kids. They have a path to success.

The problem is when parents let down their children. That's not a social mobility issue. That's a parenting issue. We should look for ways to solve that rather than focusing in financial safety nets.
 
I skimmed the article and it seems to focus on where you start in your career and then where you end, not the affect on the next generation. My great-grandfather didn't end his career significantly more wealthy than he began it, but his son did a bit better. And then my grandfather didn't end his career significantly more wealthy than he began it, but his son (my dad) did quite a bit better (after being the first in his family to go to college, at Clemson). And on and on.

Heck, I made very little money early on in my career, but do quite well now. Is that "social mobility?" I just don't think the article captures what's important.

If your parents didn't push you in school or you just didn't put forth the effort or whatever the case, you have the ability to change that for your children regardless of income. Teach them how to be good people. Teach them work ethic. Teach them manners. Teach them that learning and knowledge is important. Help them learn from your mistakes.

I spent time with a 1st grade class at a Title I school yesterday. We had lunch and my team handed out gifts. We had snacks and they read us their favorite books. If their parents teach them the important things, stay active in their life and ensure that they take school and learning seriously, there is no reason that they should need safety net programs to survive this world. The teacher was great and the asst. principal was very engaged with the kids. They have a path to success.

The problem is when parents let down their children. That's not a social mobility issue. That's a parenting issue. We should look for ways to solve that rather than focusing in financial safety nets.

This is the great fallacy in the personal responsibility dogma. Children who had bad parents are supposed to magically become good parents themselves, when they've never been taught how.

I seriously mean no offense by this, but I don't care about your story. The plural of anecdote is not data. I'll admit that my average work ethic caught up with me and I sent you a weak article. I'll search more earnestly if you'll keep an open mind to it. All of the data I've been exposed to says that where you start in life has a profound impact on where you finish.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT