Thanks for finding an article. One of mine contests each of those points. Said that tax reductions did not drive growth in the 20s and 60s and noted that Reagan raised taxes 11 times in the 80s after his initial reduction.
OT: Final Tax Plan Thoughts
- Thread starter scotchtiger
- Start date
Thanks for finding an article. One of mine contests each of those points. Said that tax reductions did not drive growth in the 20s and 60s and noted that Reagan raised taxes 11 times in the 80s after his initial reduction.
I think there is a better chance we sign Salyer Mays and Carman tomorrow than the Dems working with Trump on healthcare reform.
On the last point, are you talking about people forced to take insurance (individual mandate) who otherwise wouldn't? Are you calling the insurance exchanges Obamacare? The exchanges don't work well, but they are better than the private market. Personally, I would like to keep the individual mandate, but allow individuals to buy scaled back coverage. Plans with exclusions for pre-existing conditions, don't cover adult children, don't cover contraceptive care, etc. would work well for policies individuals purchase for themselves.
Yes, that's crappy insurance, but the point is to force young healthy people who would otherwise roll the dice to pay for insurance. Most young healthy people would save money by not buying coverage, but some would not and some of that group will just go to the emergency room and we pick up the tab in higher insurance premiums.
Your points are not without merit. However, I take specific exception to the idea of having insurance that doesn't cover contraception or preexisting conditions.
Contraception coverage is in the best interest of insurers - it keeps costs down. I think the only argument against it is a (dubiously) moral one.
Keeping healthy people in the same pools as sick people is the only way to keep premiums manageable. If healthy people are allowed to just go have their own cheap insurance, people with preexisting conditions will just be charged A TON.
ANYONE IN FAVOR OF MILLIONS WALKING AROUND WITH NO HEALTH INSURANCE IS RETARDED. HEALTHY PEOPLE GET SICK AND THEY WILL BE TREATED. WE WILL PAY FOR IT. EITHER FORCE PEOPLE TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE OR JUST GIVE UP AND HAVE A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM FOR BASIC HEALTHCARE.
Let's all just go ahead and agree federal income tax is theft, it's not needed (see U.S. pre 1913) and that government fraud, waste and abuse are encouraged/propagated with a guarantee of tax payer money.
The government is literally bad at everything minus national security.
"a tax break to the wealthy" always makes me smile
The government is literally bad at everything minus national security.
"a tax break to the wealthy" always makes me smile
RIGHT. SO YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULD FIX THE SPENDING PROBLEM BEFORE FIXING TAXES. BUT THEY DID NOT.
Federal taxation (not State) was necessary in order to impress upon the public the idea of "tax and spend". When in reality (post 1913) the true agenda became credit creation. Since the general public slowly (over decades) lost their collective ability to keep track of our governments finances, we also lost our ability to determine what was happening (depreciation to zero) to the medium of exchange (money) in our hands.
There is no longer any branch of government, municipal, State or federal in which tax payer "money" finance it. Taxes no longer hold an historical equivalent of energy in government, the government is perpetuated by credit and credit alone, your tax "dollars" are a pawn used by politicians to sway votes, destroy lives, create favors, etc...
I’m amazed by the intellectual dishonesty of so-called conservatives who try to justify cutting revenue without first cutting spending.
It’s fiscal liberalism.
this bill is far better than out current tax code for small businesses
One way to fix a spending problem is to stop funding. This tax bill will give tax payers a chance to decide how more of their money is spent.
How will it stop it? We’ll keep seeing bills to raise the debt ceiling (from both parties) until they pass a bill that removes the debt ceiling altogether.
That's a completely different argument. I don't dispute we have a spending problem. I'm simply saying at the very least, the tax bill will take 1 trillion in taxpayer money away from our gov't. The less they manage, the better.
And there is no such thing as "funding" anymore. Why anyone still believes this with our fiscal policy is not paying attention behind the curtain.
Ironically "raising" the debt ceiling supposedly evades default. But, if anyone has the slightest notion of how credit expansion works vs. time, the US has already defaulted on several occasions just since 1913. This year is no different.
The wealthy already pay 70% up of taxes so they are going to get a good chunk of the savings in a tax cut plan. Democrats are playing class warfare card here.
Then don't call it a middle class tax cut. Better yet, don't do it. Just don't cut taxes at all.
THE FED GOVT IS GOING TO HAVE ITS REVENUE CUT BY $1.5 TRILLION BUT WE ALL KNOW SPENDING BY THE FED GOVT WONT SLOW DOWN EVEN CLOSE TO THAT RATE, IF AT ALL. SO PLEASE TELL ME HOW WE WILL MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE. TRICKLE DOWN ON STEROIDS? TRUSTING CORPORATE EXECS TO REINVEST THE SAVINGS INSTEAD OF PAYING THEMSELVES AND SHAREHOLDERS? I HAVE NO DOUBT SOME SAVINGS WILL BE POURED BACK INTO THE ECONOMY BUT WITH NO STIPULATION TO DO SO, WHAT PERCENTAGE ACTUALLY DOES?
CORP TAX SAVINGS SHOULD HAVE TO BE REINVESTED. ISN’T THAT HOW WE CREATE GOOD JOBS WHICH CREATE MORE TAX PAYING CITIZENS (INSTEAD OF DEPENDING ON ENTITLEMENTS)?
A MASSIVE TAX CUT SHOULD HAVE TO COME WITH A MASSIVE SPENDING CUT. WE SHOULD NOT BE SPENDING 450 BILLION ON A NEW FIGHTER PLANE WE DO NOT NEED AND OH BY THE WAY DOES NOT EVEN FVCKING FLY CORRECTLY.
I am just curious... this question is directed at you and @gsoccer16. When Trump said he would not benefit from this tax cut, do you believe him?
FLaw47, I am very busy at work. I do not need to prove the existence of any articles. You are arguing with yourself. Your argument was that a tax cut never "pays for itself". That entire theory is invalid. A tax cut doesn't need to be paid for. Anyone with a cursory understanding of economics knows this. I'll give you another simple analogy. Say your lawn maintenance guy decides he is gonna charge you $55 a week for maintenance instead of $60, do you question him as to why? He has found that his employees have been sitting in his trucks in between jobs and he has installed GPS tracking systems to monitor their progress. He now knows that they will be more productive, he lowers his cost to consumer, he also therefore by the simplest of economic theories is able to make additional customer contacts and build his business. There is no need to pay for his price cut to you. Enjoy the savings and spend it elsewhere.
The article I linked merely shows, as does at least one of the articles you linked, that a tax cut always leads to an economic boom.
With regard to Reagan, the reason for subsequent raises to taxes was uncontrolled increases to spending. We both know that you can't increase spending without increasing overall revenue. That is just as impossible as "paying for a tax cut".
Regards and Go Tigers!
N---
Last edited:
Not exactly pre tax. But I will get the SC deduction on each dollar I fund my SC FutureScholar."Added bonus - you can now use 529 plans to fund K-12 education. Little scotchtiger's grandparents all received a Future Scholar contribution form in advance of Christmas."
Is that true? So basically you can send your kids to private school with pre-tax dollars?
@scotchtiger
I am leary of this being true though, it's the first I have heard of the K-12 provision. I hope it's true though.
What if the Republicans are in it for the long play? Stay with me. They know they are in trouble for the next election cycle. Pass a tax bill that possibly puts America on the path to increased deficit spending, threatens social security/medicare, and leads to increased healthcare costs. Blame the incoming party/new majority party (Democrats). Reassert dominance in 4-6 years. Meanwhile, my Average American Family is left holding the bag for the powers that be (both parties) and their insistence on kicking the can down the road.
That's okay. Two can play that game. While my income has not significantly grown, my buying power has increased. (Thanks cheap, easy credit). My spending continues to increase. My families happiness increases. In a few years, I will transfer the debt for pennies on the dollar to India or China. I can do that right? Why follow the Dave Ramsey model when Uncle Sam's is so much more fun?
Well, it sounded good in my head. Now that I put it in writing, I am not so sure. Hell with it. I am gonna refi the house and put everything in a crypto currency not called Bit-Coin. Good day.
That's okay. Two can play that game. While my income has not significantly grown, my buying power has increased. (Thanks cheap, easy credit). My spending continues to increase. My families happiness increases. In a few years, I will transfer the debt for pennies on the dollar to India or China. I can do that right? Why follow the Dave Ramsey model when Uncle Sam's is so much more fun?
Well, it sounded good in my head. Now that I put it in writing, I am not so sure. Hell with it. I am gonna refi the house and put everything in a crypto currency not called Bit-Coin. Good day.
Trump personally will not benefit from the tax plan, but his corporations along with all other US corporations will benefit. The Donald pulled a major victory for America today!
LOL. The national debt is a nasty issue that spans from the birth of the FED and the US leaving the gold currency standard and is a runaway freight train. The republicans blame Obama for it going up more than all other presidencies combined, but it will continue to grow fast due to the interest on the national debt being the second largest single amount after defense spending, so the US is in a fix there that will have to be addressed. Concerning yearly budget deficits or surpluses we can only hope that the tax plan will grow revenue to more than offset the decrease in rates....I think it will. But we can run a yearly surplus and the national debt will still grow due to the interest on the national debt. Trump has to continue to try and decrease spending and downsize some of the wasteful government spending though...this is how Reagan messed up when he got the tax cuts revenue went up but spending spiraled out of control. We will see how this plays out. I am in full support of President Trump.
You do realize that trump never divested from his company, even though he promised he would. So the correct answer is that Trump WILL personally benefit, bigly. He just said he wouldn’t b/c he knows you mouth breathers will believe anything he says. Anyway, enjoy your extra $200 bucks a month and don’t spend it all in one place. I am sure it was worth the extra $1.5 trillion in debt.
I'm so confused, and you seem to be as well.
If Trump's corporations (that he objectively and factually never divested from) benefit from a massive tax cut, how does he not benefit?
Is this to say that you believe the role of the federal government should be limited to just collective defense?
Look at all these stock buy-backs...errr...bonuses to middle class employees, increased wages and infrastructure investments...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...mpanies-promise-bonuses-pay-raises/971199001/
AT&T, Comcast, Wells Fargo and Boeing among those already planning to disperse tax benefits to front line employees.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...mpanies-promise-bonuses-pay-raises/971199001/
AT&T, Comcast, Wells Fargo and Boeing among those already planning to disperse tax benefits to front line employees.
Trump is a private citizen and a business owner. He will have his own personal tax statements and then his businesses will have a separate tax statement. He may or may not even be receiving income or profits from his businesses. Trump never said he would sell his businesses, but stated he would put his children in control while he serves at POTUS.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...om-his-business-while-president-idUSKBN14V21I
All of it. He never stated he would sell his businesses, but would put his kids in control while he serves as POTUS.
He said at one point he'd put everything into a blind trust, which he certainly did not. To be fair, his attorney said it'd be a blind trust and immediately said his children would be in charge (not a blind trust), so at least they were pretty forthcoming with the lie on that one. I'd still argue that it's deliberately misleading to even use the term "blind trust" in that situation.
Let’s try this again. A few weeks ago Trump said this....
“My accountant called me and said 'you're going to get killed in this bill.' The deal is so bad for rich people, I had to throw in the estate tax just to give them something."
We now know that this is bullshit. Trump and his family will profit ‘bigly’ from this bill. So, was he lying? Or was he just ignorant of what was in the bill?
