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.

 

Senate passes tax reform bill

page: 10
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: eXia7
So... does that mean the government plans to cut wasteful spending?

I doubt it.


Haven't you been keeping up? This administration has already found gazillions of waste, fraud, and abuse, and lots of redundancy.

This administration is very focused on finding waste and redundancy.


Yeah we'll see.

It will be hard to convince me of anything considering I'm a traditional "conspiracy theorist", as in I don't believe in either side, and see the entire system as a sham.


You could always move here. They appear to be pretty woke.




posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar


My only question is:

Who stands to benefit the most under this “new reform”?

That is to ask, who stands to make the most money by having to pay the (proportionally) least?

From what I am reading, people like me who were hit hardest by the recession and are still trying to recover.

I'm not really even looking at the personal tax breaks as much as I am the business taxes. Lowering the corporate tax rate puts us on a par with most other industrialized countries, meaning companies can profit by locating and expanding here, creating new US jobs instead of new Mexican/Chinese jobs. That means I will stand a far better chance of getting a job. It also means if the job market increases as expected, employers will have to look harder for qualified jobseekers, and will have to offer better pay/work environments as a way to attract talent. Both of those are good for my bottom line. I have more of a shot at having a decent income and insurance.

If the personal taxes are factored in, though, it looks even better. My standard deduction doubles, and my tax rate lowers. In addition, educational expenses are now allowed as a tax credit, so I might be able to continue in school.

Even if I don't go the job route and manage to get one of my projects completed, the fact that people with jobs will have greater disposable income means it will likely sell better. That's more income for me.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
taxplancalculator.com...

how much worse off will you be under the new tax plan?



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven


Oh okay, so you believe economists.

Economists such as the ones who say we should tax carbon to combat global warming. Laughable.

You know, one of my degrees dabbled pretty deeply in economics; it became apparent by even in the upper courses that their ideas were based on nonsense and wishful thinking, not just simplification for the lower courses. Their models depend on people being perfectly rational, and we have a plethora of examples both of that being wrong and economists failing repeatedly.

You seem to have confused 'economist' with 'climatologist.' They are not the same thing.

I'd ask for a refund on that degree if I was you.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: knoxie


ya, until you have another heart attack. I guess you can save your huge tax break just in case, so the rest of us don't have to pay for it..

Gee, your sympathy is overwhelming. Please don't bury me until I stop moving, K?


and, I sure as hell hope your mom doesn't lose hers..

She won't.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


I hope you're right.

my parents are wealthy republicans. so much so I've never had to worry about retirement... ever. my college and all six of my sibling were paid for. there's a trust set up for all 15 grandkids. this new tax plan is going to work out just fine for all of us.

it's not gonna trickle anywhere, tho.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: knoxie


do you have stocks?

Not at present. The market was too volatile under Bush/Obama. If I get anything to invest, though, Dollar General looks pretty darn promising right now to me.

Unfortunately, my mother does. Obama cost her several tens of thousands in value. Hopefully it has rebounded some under Trump.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


ii'm sorry, that's too bad for your mom's stock.

my dad lost a lot as well (under bush) but it's more than rebounded in the last 5 years. it's ridiculous how much he makes from stocks monthly.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: knoxie

That depends on how it is targeted.

Trickle-down only works on small-to mid-size businesses which do not yet have a significant market share. They will grow in order to obtain that significant market share by hiring more people and buying new equipment. That's how trickle-down theoretically works.

Reagan's issue was targeting. There was some trickle-down, but not nearly as much as there could have been. Too much of the incentive went into large companies like GM, Caterpillar, Intel, AIG, etc. These are mature companies who already have their market share, so of course they aren't going to create new jobs unless their market expands significantly.

I think I should stop with the explanation now, though, before I confuse Greven. I'm glad to hear you'll do well under the new plan. I hope I do too.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Opportunity isn't being given what you want. Opportunity is having the right to try and get what you want.


Opportunity is enabling. Not helping is not enabling, therefore it is not opportunity.



That's freedom. What you think about it is irrelevant.


Freedom is the ability to reach your potential, anything that gets in the way of that by not helping, either actively or passively, is not freedom.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
Most Americans see right through that lie. The Democrat party believes in this perpetual myth that the average citizen doesn't understand percentages.


They don't. They think the polls were wrong because they said Hillary had a 90% chance to win and it didn't happen.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: knoxie

The actual recession occurred under Bush, as has been pointed out. The more volatile stocks went first. Mom plays conservative, so her losses came a little later.

Obama's sin was not that he created a recession; he didn't. But Obama did precious little to fix the recession he inherited. Had he been a competent President, we would be talking about the 2-year recession instead of still trying to recover 8 years later.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Vector99 Have you read any of the proposal? The big corporate company's currently pay a 35% corporate tax. That number will drop to 20%. I am still reading this behemoth of a thing. And there is very little information about this out there. I doubt this plan is good for average Joe but we will see I guess.




Obviously left leaning people do not understand how free trade works on a global scale

Less taxes equal more business period otherwise that money goes offshore



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Opportunity is enabling.

No, that's charity.


Freedom is the ability to reach your potential, anything that gets in the way of that by not helping, either actively or passively, is not freedom.

That would include over-regulation and over-taxation, wouldn't it? How about a slow job market? What about illness? Maybe bad luck?

The last two are not restrictions on freedom... they are life. Sometimes life's not fair, but it is what it is.

As I said, you have much to learn.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Actually, the Dow never hit 19,000 until Trump was elected. It remained essentially flat for most of Obama's administration. Since the election, it has steadily climbed upward.

The stock market prices are an indication of business confidence in a bright future. It shows that under Trump, businesses think the future economy is bright.

TheRedneck

He wasn't in office yet so he didn't do # to impact it until he was.

It doesn't matter one whit whether it was after the election. It was down slightly to 17,888.28 the day after the election.

You are completely and utterly wrong that the DJIA was flat during Obama's terms.


That's actually not true. It's well-known the market factors future expectations in. Once Trump was elected and the initial plunge occurred because investors had to get out of things they thought would be smart moves in a Clinton administration, they made a bunch of moves in anticipation of Trump's agenda, especially given that Republicans controlled Congress too. You're wrong.

Just so we're clear, you're saying the DJIA is not reflective of actual policy, but rather of speculative accomplishments. This is what you are 'disagreeing' with, that by virtue of being elected - not anything related to actual policy - Trump had something to do with the DJIA rising from 17888 to 19,804.72.

You are engaging in wild speculation. This is how the stock market looked under Obama:


The numbers are all correct.
The fact that the DJIA rose during Obama's terms is without question.
The trend was a little flat from mid-2015 to mid-2016, then passed 18,000 before the 2016 election, though fell below after before recovering.


Just to be clear, I'm not saying the entire rise is due to him. But obviously his election had some impact on the market, unless the 800+ point plunge was Obama's fault. Once you acknowledge he can cause losses before he's president, you must admit he can cause gains. And again, it's well-known that the market does consider the future in what it's doing. Watch a few "after the bell" shows. No matter which network you watch them on, they will explain why the market did xyz that day. The explanations are always because of some news revelation about something that's going to happen in the future ie a merger, a split, a law change, etc. Liberal and conservative economists acknowledge this. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude some of the market gain between election day and inauguration day had to do with the fact that investors expected good things to happen in the future under Trump and the policies he promised to enact (tax changes, axing regulations, etc).

I realize that doesn't fit your preferred narrative but it's established fact about how the stock market works. It's high school economics.

I'm not acknowledging that the election impacted it.

It's not reasonable to assume that, unless you surrender the notion that economics is a pseudoscience.

Remember, the shopping season is right after the election. The DJIA closed at 19,152.14 on Black Friday 2016.


It absolutely is reasonable, since economists on both sides of the aisle acknowledge that the market usually goes up and down based on investor expectations of the future. It's taught in economics classes. You're wrong.

Oh okay, so you believe economists.

Economists such as the ones who say we should tax carbon to combat global warming. Laughable.

You know, one of my degrees dabbled pretty deeply in economics; it became apparent by even in the upper courses that their ideas were based on nonsense and wishful thinking, not just simplification for the lower courses. Their models depend on people being perfectly rational, and we have a plethora of examples both of that being wrong and economists failing repeatedly.


If you have been formally educated on economics and you still don't understand that the market trends are based on what investors expect to happen in the future, you got ripped off by whatever school you attended. Let me ask you this. When you invest in something, are you not doing it because you expect it to do well in the future?

For sure economists have some wacky ideas, but the fact that investors invest based on future expectations is not one of them. You know it too, you're just so deep in this hole you've dug you can't admit you're wrong.

I understand that economics bull# just fine, thanks.

Here you are trying to tie investment to economics just to backup your ridiculous demeaning insult. Of course, when corrected, you immediately jump to another ridiculous demeaning insult - that I should get a refund for my education.

Preposterous self-important bravado is ever more ridiculous when it flops around like a hooked fish.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: face23785
All the changes have been being talked about all week. They were no surprise. Fail. You got lied to bro.

And let's not pretend any Democrats were gonna vote yea even if they re-read the entire bill. A few of them may vote yes on the reconciled bill, because they know their talking points are false and at that point if it's about to come law anyway it'll be politically beneficial to them to get on the record supporting a beneficial tax bill, even if it does prove them to be liars for opposing it now.


I know they weren't going to vote for it, I wanted to see the reform fail.


Yes I'm aware of that. You still got lied to. They all knew what the changes were. They purposefully misled you to think some phantom changes got snuck in that they were unaware of. That's a straight up lie. Don't be ok with being lied to as long as the lies suit your agenda.

Oh okay, so what does this change say:


You appear to have ignored my response to this on the previous page. Any thoughts on how you were misled by your elected representatives and the media?

Oh, do I need to respond to every post in the thread now? A good guess as to what that said.

The cut off words came from the Republicans' photocopying. The bill originated with them. That wasn't the only change, but one of many. Media had nothing to do with this at all - that image was taken from a Senator.

Also, my representatives are Republicans, so I would say they did indeed mislead.
They rushed the changes so quickly that they had to photocopy handwritten changes rather than type them up.


The media spread the false idea that some changes no one knew about were snuck in. That myth was invented by elected officials and passed on by the media to suckers like you. If your reps aren't Democrats, then it wasn't your elected officials that willfully lied to you. Regardless, the officials you chose to believe willfully misled you. I've demonstrated how you were misled. With my limited legal experience, none of which dealt with tax law, I was able to readily decipher that text. Anyone with marginal experience in tax language would have an even easier time. No one was scrambling to figure out what the changes were. That's a lie. It's a lie you fell for. The truth has now been explained to you in very simple terms. Do you embrace the truth or not?

Again no, I haven't listened to any 'media' telling me # I watched on live streams up until 2am this morning when I was following this vote. It was kinda hard to do so on the Republican side, given that they didn't have any available to explain to the public what was in their bill that the forced through under budget reconciliation.

Yet, here you are going on making up stupid bull# things, then saying I fell for the lies you are yourself spinning.

Cool, you figured out partially what a scribble said. You have prior experience doing that, in fact. I couldn't make heads or tails on half of that. There were more than one of these revisions. Other sections were marked out. Other words were marked out or added to change meanings. This was done on a number of the nearly 500 pages. They were given the revised bill hours before it was voted on.

One Democrat on the floor of the chamber challenged anyone to swear an oath that they had read and understood the law. Nobody took him up on it. Telling, don't you think?

I would suggest that you stop lying.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven


Oh okay, so you believe economists.

Economists such as the ones who say we should tax carbon to combat global warming. Laughable.

You know, one of my degrees dabbled pretty deeply in economics; it became apparent by even in the upper courses that their ideas were based on nonsense and wishful thinking, not just simplification for the lower courses. Their models depend on people being perfectly rational, and we have a plethora of examples both of that being wrong and economists failing repeatedly.

You seem to have confused 'economist' with 'climatologist.' They are not the same thing.

I'd ask for a refund on that degree if I was you.

TheRedneck

You seem to have not understood that economics came up with the idea, not politicians.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven


He wasn't in office yet so he didn't do # to impact it until he was.

It doesn't matter one whit whether it was after the election. It was down slightly to 17,888.28 the day after the election.

The Dow reflects FUTURE expectations. Those are only partially based on past performance.

The stock market is an investment vehicle. Stocks are traded to produce money in the future, typically within 1-5 years. Some retiree accounts may have longer goals, but they are still monitored for performance within that time frame.


You are completely and utterly wrong that the DJIA was flat during Obama's terms. Here's noted "left wing" Forbes:
Inside The Obama Stock Market's 235% Return - Forbes

Of course the market wasn't flat immediately following the crash. It was up 235% from an artificial floor. You (and they) are cherry-picking the lowest possible point to reference from.

Once it recovered to the 17,000-18,000 level, it remained essentially flat.

I'm sorry; since you brought up the stock market, I simply assumed you knew what it was and something about how it worked. My bad.


You are so wrong here that you are living in an alternate reality.

I suppose it seems that way to you.

TheRedneck

Blah blah blah blah. You say this nonsense and totally gloss over that the highest close of the DJIA was barely above 14000 under George W. Bush.

Here's what you wrote:

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Actually, the Dow never hit 19,000 until Trump was elected. It remained essentially flat for most of Obama's administration. Since the election, it has steadily climbed upward.
TheRedneck

Here's reality:


You ain't a snake, but perhaps you can still wriggle out of this one. Oh, also, the DJIA declined between Christmas and inauguration, so it wasn't steadily upwards for a bit.
edit on 15Sat, 02 Dec 2017 15:35:15 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago12 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

What you have been carrying on about are mark-up amendments. The authors of the amendments take the original bill and mark it up by hand to reflect the changes they want. Then the marked up bill is sent to the transcriptionists who type up the amendment formally and distribute it to the congressmen for consideration.

No one voted based on a scribble (unless they are dumb enough to think the scribble was the final amendment - I suppose that's possible since we're talking about the US Senate).

If you got that from a congressman who claimed it was a final draft, I highly recommend you send someone else next time you get the chance. He/she is an idiot.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven


You seem to have not understood that economics came up with the idea, not politicians.

Jim Hansen is a climatologist.

Al Gore is an idiot who thinks he's a tornado.

Neither are economists.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join