It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Tax "Hoax" Would Blow $5 Trillion Hole In Budget Over Next Decade: Analysis

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+9 more 
posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Now that the repeal of ACA has been retracted - once again - how many times is it now that this repeal has failed - 40, 50 times - sigh - the administration - the republicans are focusing on 'tax reform'.

More likely another 'trickle down' ripoff of the middle class. I'm posting this to somewhat counter act the 'orange-shirt' brigade that takes Trump's lies as gospel truth. You know - the endless sycophants lost in their own little delusions of a 'great america'.


"The idea that this plan would help average Americans instead of the wealthy and big corporations has been a hoax all along," said Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF), which on Tuesday released an analysis showing that Trump's plan would likely leave a $5 trillion hole in the federal budget over the next ten years.

"This isn't 'tax reform,’ it’s just a big giveaway to millionaires and corporations, and it won’t ‘trickle down’ to the rest of us," Clemente said.

"It won’t help small businesses, but it will help Wall Street hedge fund managers and real estate moguls like Donald Trump.

This plan will not lead to robust job creation or economic growth, but its eye-popping cost will lead to deep cuts in Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and public education that will leave working families in the cold."


www.commondreams.org...

First - I think most of these 'orange-shirts' (such a nice, peaceful pejorative don't ya think?) believe that the US was great during the post WWII years to the early seventies.

At that time in our history our tax system was very progressive - meaning that, at each tier, the tax rate went up - progressive in that sense not the usage of progressive today. Corporations had little incentive to 'hoard' cash, artificially jack up stock prices - all the good schemes that are 'just doing business' today. The inheritance tax likewise was a disincentive to family dynasties that our founders were greatly opposed to (or a majority of them anyhow).




posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Probably a challenge any more to find anybody with two working brain cells to rub together that does not understand the reality of this clown show. There is no way on this God's green Earth that these folks are going to do ANYTHING to help out the middle class. At best it will be like the GWB tax cut... yeah, nearly everybody got tax money sent back to them, but for nearly everybody it was on the order of what, ~$600? Gone in seconds.

While the upper few percent got hundreds of thousands back, virtually none of which 'trickled down'. The whole trickle down scam has proven over and over to be a complete failure in terms of a good economy (huge Wall St. numbers do not a good economy make), and the current set of clowns making the rules are going to do nothing better, and very likely much worse.

Hopefully enough Democrats will oppose this crap so it won't come to pass. Otherwise the GOP "tax reform" is going to look a lot like the GOP "health care reform"... yet one more way to screw the majority of the population in favor of further enrichment of those that don't need it and can't even use it.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I'm taking everything with a grain of salt these days.

For the past..... hell, since I was born, i have yet to see an analyst correctly project anything even close to real world numbers in regard to any taxes, bills, or costs being claimed.

The analysts on Obamas plans, Bush's plans, Clinton's, etc., have all been waayyy off base...... If you ask me, they're full of just as much BS as the people trying to pass said bills.

In the long run it doesn't matter though, nothing will pass anyway


+8 more 
posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Well, if you can't trust
'Common Dreams: Breaking News & Views For The Progressive Community'
for an unbiased political assessment...

Who CAN you trust?



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Be ye of good cheer......nothing will get passed. Investment guru Jim Cramer has himself stated....."If you are waiting for or expecting a Tax Bill to pass this Congress, my recommendation is DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH!



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Call it a Tax plan, hoax or watchamacallit, either way the federal Gov. has overgrown and has to be downsized, period.
Last I looked we live in the USA not FGA (Federal Government of America)



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
yeah but if a liberral is doing the commentary, of course its going to be bad. if a conserv is doing the commentary, its great.

the scam is simple. until we get rid of the inter-national tax created by the inter-nationalists, we will continue to live as just cattle for them.

why do i have to fork over 20-35% of the money i earn to inter-nationlists?



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Well, if you can't trust
'Common Dreams: Breaking News & Views For The Progressive Community'
for an unbiased political assessment...

Who CAN you trust?


That's a good sign that this Tax Cut / Tax Reorganization package is on the right track. Bernie Sanders hates it too. Another indicator of how good it is.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Flat tax, no exceptions no exemptions.

The top cries, the bottom cries and the middle class gets a tax cut.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Who CAN you trust?


According to Princeton you can trust people with a good facial appearance.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Well said OP.
Notice how they really can't (or won't) say how they intend to pay for it?
Notice how the Greedy Old Parasites only care about budget deficits when a Dem is in office?
Notice how complete and utter fiscal irresponsibility is always OK when the cons have the reins?
No matter what type of poopulist spin Comrade Cheeto and his orange minions try to put on this, it's NOT about the middle class. It never is w/Republicans. This is just another giveaway to the wealthy elite--the plutocracy doing its thing.
Economists have pointed out time and time again that NOTHING trickles down. Fuzzy Republican math doesn't work out, but they really don't need it to. All they need to do is keep convincing their mindless moonies that they too can be rich and prosperous if they support these scams--licking up the Kool-Aid like pee at a soma sacrifice.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: FyreByrd

I'm taking everything with a grain of salt these days.

For the past..... hell, since I was born, i have yet to see an analyst correctly project anything even close to real world numbers in regard to any taxes, bills, or costs being claimed.

The analysts on Obamas plans, Bush's plans, Clinton's, etc., have all been waayyy off base...... If you ask me, they're full of just as much BS as the people trying to pass said bills.

In the long run it doesn't matter though, nothing will pass anyway


The analysis on most budgets is rather accurate. Tax cuts get a little trickier because they project a decade out and are reliant on economic growth numbers. Numbers tend to just get assumed here based on past performance and realistic expectations. For example, if someone says lets cut taxes and that will generate x billions in revenue, they're making the assumption that the tax cut will boost the economy by that percent, and that boost will make up the cost of the cuts and then some.

Trumps campaign trail tax plan for example required 6% growth year after year in order to break even, and would have required 8% growth for the next decade to generate the revenue he claimed.

Bush's cuts ended up costing just about exactly what they were projected to cost.

Another trick often used is that a bill will be funded as deficit neutral by adding a tax to it. However, said tax will be postponed for say 10 years (usually after the bill expires), so that on paper it's eventually deficit neutral, but in practice it costs money. This is the one that most often gets the government into trouble.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: FyreByrd

Flat tax, no exceptions no exemptions.

The top cries, the bottom cries and the middle class gets a tax cut.


No one wants that though. People want a tax break for being married, they want a home buyer tax credit, they want a credit for installing green energy or upgrading their home, they want a depreciation credit on their assets, they want a tax deferred retirement account, they want HSA's, they want a credit for their kid, and so on.

The very last thing anyone wants is a removal of exemptions and deductions. Deep down people like deducations because it makes them feel like they're putting one over on the man by playing the system and paying less.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Anyone saying it's a tax break for the rich is ignorant or is straight up lying (usually the 2nd one). Dropping the top rate to 35% would be a tax break for the rich, except once you take all their exemptions away their effective tax rate is probably gonna be higher. All the Dems going on about tax break for the rich know this. They're intentionally lying to you because they think you're stupid.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

Why should they have to "pay" for not taking away other people's money?

The simple answer would be that they grow a spine and cut spending.

I know. I know. It's the government and they never, ever think of that.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

They haven't been very specific about what exemptions they intend to take away, though.
They've already acknowledged a few sacred cows--mortgage interest, for example.
And given the threshold where it kicks in, cutting the estate tax sure seems like a giveaway to the rich.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Since those things now make my top tax rate less strangling, I think I'd actually do better to take the tax rate shave with the loss of deduction.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

More voodoo economics. It didn't work last time and it will not work this time. Truly something to be critical over. but people are preoccupied over NFL and anarchist protests.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

Since those things now make my top tax rate less strangling, I think I'd actually do better to take the tax rate shave with the loss of deduction.


I'm actually against all deductions. While I think tax rates are too low right now, I also think the tax code is ridiculous. If we kept effective rates mostly equal, and just simplified the tax code I would call that a win.

That's not what anyone is trying to do though, because people don't want that. They want lower brackets in addition to a whole bunch of freedom stifling hoops they can jump through for additional deductions.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77
a reply to: face23785

They haven't been very specific about what exemptions they intend to take away, though.
They've already acknowledged a few sacred cows--mortgage interest, for example.
And given the threshold where it kicks in, cutting the estate tax sure seems like a giveaway to the rich.


I don't support removing the estate tax. I think it needs expanded actually. In my ideal world (which we'll never have) I would like to see a 100% estate tax on all businesses and individuals. I'm against inheritances/generational wealth, and think that each generation should earn their own way and become wealthy or not on their own merits.

That's not something that will ever be implemented, because it's a natural parenting instinct to want to pass things along to their kids, and very few have actually been in my position in life where they've had the opportunity to turn away 8 figure inheritance sums (much less, have actually done it). But, it's how I feel about it. If people are supposed to succeed and fail by their own ability, and if the world is supposed to function as something of a meritocracy, then an inheritance feels to me like it goes against everything our society should stand for and I would rather see them not exist.

Or to flip that around, if you believe in equality of opportunity, I don't think one can support passing on an estate because it inehrently means giving your descendents an unfair opportunity.



new topics




 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join