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 Plan will be Devestating to Seniors and Poor People

page: 7
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xtrozero

It's sad that Democrats are against tax cuts for their own constituents.

It's amazing that they think everyone who votes for them is poor and downtrodden.


Tax cuts that are the opposite of fiscal responsibility... and that also don't meaningfully cut taxes for the people.

If the Republicans wanted to boost the economy they would give Bush surpluses. If they wanted to reduce taxes they would give everyone a $2000 tax rebate. Instead, they're giving it all to the top, because their donors want to be voted the treasury.




posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Xtrozero

The republicans NEVER offer much good. Only good for the rich and powerful or the defense industry

All they do is stop things that help the poor and MC, and offer bills that protect the rich like this tax cut bill.


I'm republican, and not rich. I have done much better under republicans than democrats. Democrats do not create jobs and have never helped the poor. After 8 years under a Democrat president they are still poor, so what gives?

Policies from democrats that are humane don’t claim to be magical. They don’t work because the GOP (as their doing with Obamacare) always try to undermine developing policies. Obamacare, since neither party want to do single payer, has to develop over time.


What has the GOP EVER done for working or poor people? NOTHING!


Also, the economy under Clinton was booming---he balanced the budget.

Under Bush we had a depression


Your post has no logic or reality to it


Empty words


(post by StunPrix removed for a manners violation)

posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

So what you're saying is, it's the governments responsibility to take care of these people till the end of life? Sorry, but that's not the way things work.
If you choose to not set yourself up for your silver years, it's not the governments responsibility to come to the rescue. Bad decisions have consequences.
The millennials are going to learn this lesson harder than anyone before them.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Wealth redistribution, huh?
Nah, giving someone else tax dollars to people that PAY NO TAX is a no go. And don't say they pay tax from their checks either.
If you file taxes and receive everything you payed in PLUS more money for having children, you're getting someone else money for nothing.
edit on 19-11-2017 by comawhite12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: comawhite12
a reply to: angeldoll

So what you're saying is, it's the governments responsibility to take care of these people till the end of life? Sorry, but that's not the way things work.
If you choose to not set yourself up for your silver years, it's not the governments responsibility to come to the rescue. Bad decisions have consequences.
The millennials are going to learn this lesson harder than anyone before them.


Yeah like all the 401 k plans destroyed by the 2007-8 depression is the fault of those people ?


They control the macro economy.


Your in fantasy land



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo


I don't blame insurance companies for hospital and doctors lack of price transparency. That is on them and the government for letting them get away with it.

I can't argue with that, but tell me: who is more likely to demand an itemized bill or an estimate prior to a procedure? Someone who is heavily insured, or someone who is paying the bill themselves?

Just try to ask for an estimate on the cost before a procedure sometime. I did it once; I was uninsured and my son had a benign growth on his hand that needed to be removed. I got a quote from the surgeon, agreed to pay a down payment the day of the procedure, and paid the rest when he took the stitches out. You would have thought I had asked for a ticket to the moon with some of the looks I got (and he still tried to add in charges I never agreed to).

Doctors are not used to patients taking charge of their medical costs, because insurance companies typically handle that now. So they get away with all kinds of shenanigans.


If we had a real fair market it would solve a lot of the cost issues, and it would not be hard, just enforce existing laws.

Agreed with the fair market, but we really don't have enough laws that apply to the medical industry and its specific idiosyncrasies. All we really have is contract law, which requires civil action to enforce. Most people don't have enough money or enough knowledge of the medical or legal field to consider suing over a contract issue. I am pretty sure I don't.


You are wrong though insurance companies are getting far better prices than a guy off the street, they are in no way encouraging the high prices they are trying to make a profit, by getting the best deal they can.

In a way, negotiating down prices for one group leads directly to price increases for another. And those who don't get the price negotiation benefits are typically the ones left in the cold without insurance.

Think of it this way: if a doctor thinks an procedure should cost $5000,but the insurance agencies have negotiated him down to 80%, he will only get $4000 for the procedure. If he raises his normal price to $6250, though, he will get the $5000 he wanted in the first place. Of course, anyone not with that insurance company will pay $6250, a nice little $1250 bonus for the doctor. And the insurer doesn't really care, because they will just raise their premiums to cover the extra cost. As long as it is raised for everyone, that's nothing out of their pocket; they are still getting their discount to help them compete with other insurers.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: comawhite12
a reply to: Aazadan

Wealth redistribution, huh?
Nah, giving someone else tax dollars to people that PAY NO TAX is a no go. And don't say they pay tax from their checks either.
If you file taxes and receive everything you payed in PLUS more money for having children, you're getting someone else money for nothing.





You know what I like best about you're solution, absolutely nothing changes.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell


What has the GOP EVER done for working or poor people? NOTHING!

Under Reagan, I got a better job, made more, and I could afford gasoline to drive to work again. I would call that something.

The first Republican President ever freed the Southern slaves. Was that nothing?


Also, the economy under Clinton was booming---he balanced the budget.

He signed the bills that led to a balanced budget, yes. Newt Gingritch was the guy who pushed those bills through Congress, though, as Speaker of the House. I did pretty well under Clinton too.


Under Bush we had a depression

Yes, we did. Bush was an elitist. Under Obama the depression worsened for me. He was an elitist.

The worst thing about your argument is that you are generalizing everyone into one of two categories: Republican or Democrat. Real life ain't like that; the party is irrelevant compared to the policies put in place. What policies in the House tax bill do you disagree with?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Nobody forced those people to invest their 401-k in the stock market. There is an option to not invest on the forms you fill out when you start one.
Again, how is their mistake OUR problem? When you gamble, you have an equal chance to lose and win.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Instead, they're giving it all to the top, because their donors want to be voted the treasury.


That is not true...look at the facts and not the propaganda...



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell

What has the GOP EVER done for working or poor people? NOTHING!


The difference between you and me is you HATE the GOP and I just disagree with the Liberals about 70% of the time...



Also, the economy under Clinton was booming---he balanced the budget.


and then the dot com bubble popped...lol



Under Bush we had a depression


Depression..wow really? Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama all entered into office under a recession, and if you lived in the 70s it is hard to suggest the 80s 90s 20s etc were worst than what the peanut farmer left us.

The difference between Reagan, Bush and Clinton compared to Obama is they had their recessions under control in less than two years and Obama was still at it after six years...

How was the poor after 8 years of Clinton, or 8 years of Obama...they still poor and with Obama there are more now...



edit on 20-11-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
a reply to: CB328

I expect abortion rates would go up for the younger poor, and mortality rates will go up for the older poor, bringing down the average life expectancy in the U. S.




Average life expectancy dropped for the first time in decades last year under Obama, and I suspect the high deductables under Obamacare had something to do with that.

As for abortion rates going up...that’s a win for the left isn’t it?
edit on 20-11-2017 by Assessor because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I don't care who is in power as long as they leave me and my wallet alone. Lower taxes and gun rights are how I vote. Oh, and two years ago I paid over 60k in Federal taxes and I am NOT rich. Screw the Feds.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Assessor




Average life expectancy dropped for the first time in decades last year under Obama, and I suspect the high deductables under Obamacare had something to do with that.


Actually they dropped because of the heroin epidemic. Overdoses lowered the overall life expectancy of Americans by two months last year. Just an FYI of why, but Obamacare still sucks.


edit on 2017/11/20 by Metallicus because: Sp



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

From a liberals standpoint,most liberals live off govt subsidies,so they paint a false picture,for them having a job and paying your own way is a crime,when I was young it was a way of life,I never got something I didn't pay for,the rest of the world doesn't owe you a favor,grow up learn to care for yourself



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Aazadan
Instead, they're giving it all to the top, because their donors want to be voted the treasury.


That is not true...look at the facts and not the propaganda...


I did. My taxes will go up. Now, I don't mind paying additional taxes, but I do mind paying additional taxes when we're simultaneously reducing the scope of government. It results in a situation where society is paying more but getting less. Furthermore, these additional taxes I'm paying aren't going to government, they're going to large political donors.

Under this plan I lose access to health care
My federal taxes (ignoring state/city) jump from 17% of my income to 45% of my income
I lose any opportunity to ever attend grad school in the US (and to attend overseas, would have to give up residency temporarily and essentially delay running for public office for 10 to 20 years)
A house if I can ever buy one, gets more expensive

Now, I would be fine with any of even all of them if we were getting something in return for the money. But we're not. All of these increases have been added only to make the tax system flatter so that the 1% who own 50% of the wealth are paying even less proportionally.

And it's all being done under the guise of job creation, yet most billionaires who have commented on this are on record as saying it won't affect their hiring decisions one bit.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
I don't care who is in power as long as they leave me and my wallet alone. Lower taxes and gun rights are how I vote. Oh, and two years ago I paid over 60k in Federal taxes and I am NOT rich. Screw the Feds.


But lower taxes aren't sustainable. You can't lower forever. In fact, we haven't even had a tax increase in this country in 25, nearly 30 years. Seems to me like taxes are a foolish thing to make your single issue.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

You know, it's really boring that you guys just recylce the same arguments over and over. "Tax cut for the rich!" "Throw granny off the cliff!" "Dirty air and water!"

The tax plan specifically punishes the rich to ensure they don't get a tax cut. Doesn't stop you from claiming it's a tax cut from the rich.

Medicaid and medicare fraud are rampant, cutting funding will force a crackdown. But no, any cut is simply trying to murder people (as if the government is the only way anyone anywhere is taken care of).

My air and water is just as clean as the day bush jr took office.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Why can't the government do less? Why is it that everything else in the world get's cheaper, but government only grows in expense and expanse?




top topics



 
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join