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: 8
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Aazadan




I'm about to complete my 5th degree and I make $60/hour.


You're a real piece of work....a piece of work with your hand out. There. I said it. You have no clue what sacrifices people make to keep from being a burden, yet here you are with five degrees (not free) making $60 bucks an hour and still wanting other taxpayers to subsidize you. Disgusting to me.

It's some real schadenfreude to see people talking about how others need to work hard, then go after someone who clearly earns more than they do out of jealously.




posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Please. Your smarter than that. You imply the 'majors' don't want and wouldn't profit from major corporate tax cuts???

The 'majors' obviously preferred a much higher profit margin that a TPP would have assured.

Even then, screw the majors' goals. The small business community LOVES it.


Taxes are irrelevant to a corporation, they pass those costs on to the consumer. Lower tax rates won't lower prices, those are already locked in, the money will just go to the company shareholders.

Sure, small businesses love it. Small businesses have only 1-2 employees though, and those employees aren't the ones who will be seeing the gains. What you mean to say is small business owners love that they're getting huge raises.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   

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:


It says:
"ADD (a) adjustments attributable to conversion from s corporation to corporation - section 981 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: (d) adjustments attributable to conversion from s corporation to corporation. (1) [unreadable due to scan cut the page off] in the case of an eligible terminated S corporation any increase in tax under this chapter [unreadable due to scan cut the page off] any [one word I legit can’t read] of [unreadable due to scan cut the page off] adjustment [unreadable due to scan cut the page off] by subsection (a)(2) and which is attributable to such corporation’s revocation described in paragraph [I made that out even though the scan cuts it off] (2)(A)(ii), shall be taken into account notably during the [number?] taxable to period beginning with the [end of page]"

So there's legit I think 2 things in there I couldn't read, both of which anyone actually familiar with this type of language could probably simply infer from the surrounding words, much the same way when you come across a word you don't know you can sometimes infer the meaning from the context in which it's used. And most of my trouble only came from the fact that the scan cuts off words from the side of the page. I did a little bit of this type of work when I was in the Air Force, drafting and revising regulations and having to decipher other people's handwriting and understand legalese. Someone who has been doing this a long time, like Congressmen and their staffers, it should be even easier.

And again, these changes have been discussed in Congress all week, so if you've been paying attention to those discussions (which is your job as a Congressman), it shouldn't be hard to figure out. I figured it out in 2 minutes without even being able to walk across the floor and ask the other member what x y or z word is. So yeah, they know this isn't that big of a deal. They deliberately misled you.

edit on 2 12 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2 12 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2 12 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
But you think a family of poor Haitians on a raft in the middle of the Caribbean, do?



And what do we think of people who come to the US and don't speak the language? Their careers go nowhere and they have hard lives. If I'm going to immigrate somewhere I'm sure as hell not looking to be on par with an illegal immigrant.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Trump looks like he is going to get tax reform for the first time in 31 years. The majority of Americans will pay less tax and business will get a huge boost.

So, the liberal talking point of no major legislation is dying, so the new one will be some lies about the bill being for the rich only.

...and so the merry go round continues.



Correct, he will get tax reform and Net Neutrality this year.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

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. Here's noted "left wing" Forbes:
Inside The Obama Stock Market's 235% Return - Forbes

You are so wrong here that you are living in an alternate reality.
edit on 13Sat, 02 Dec 2017 13:20:42 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago12 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
If you can't save up to move with the kind of income you have, you've made a personal choice that it's not that high of a priority. My case still stands.


Two years expenses, means two years income, means roughly $150,000 US. I've been working since May, and part time during the school year. It takes time to save, especially when starting from nothing. And that's cash resources, other things like retirement which needs money too take time. Realistically it's going to take 3-5 years.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
That is my concern.

Remember what happened the last time a big, fat bill passed too fast....and very few [no one] had time to read it......


If you mean the ACA. The ACA passed after a year of debate, and did so with 60 votes rather than 50.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

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.
edit on 2 12 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

i personally am ok with this tax bill hell i would be even happier if they included a 2 cent on the dollar national sales tax on all goods . also include this tax on every stock in stock market it would go along way towards filling in our balance sheet .



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: face23785
If you can't save up to move with the kind of income you have, you've made a personal choice that it's not that high of a priority. My case still stands.


Two years expenses, means two years income, means roughly $150,000 US. I've been working since May, and part time during the school year. It takes time to save, especially when starting from nothing. And that's cash resources, other things like retirement which needs money too take time. Realistically it's going to take 3-5 years.


Two years income based on what you're projected to make there, adjusted for the exchange rate of course. I'd love for you to name a specific country too. And again, if you're saving for retirement instead of putting that money into your savings so you can move, it's not that high of a priority. So you're not "suffering" as much as you want to pretend you are. Putting off saving for retirement for a few years wouldn't have a huge impact on your nestegg over the long haul, and if anything you should be doing so much better in a "better" country that you could make up the lost ground. Not to mention if you were "suffering" as much as you pretend you are, the financial hit would be worth it.

Face it. You know you're full of #. You have it just fine here, and you know it.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Vector99

i personally am ok with this tax bill hell i would be even happier if they included a 2 cent on the dollar national sales tax on all goods . also include this tax on every stock in stock market it would go along way towards filling in our balance sheet .


The tax on every trade sounds good on paper, but in reality most of those trades are done by fund managers, who control most of the 401ks and IRAs. They do tons of trades left and right to properly manage our funds. Everyone thinks if they instituted such a tax it would mainly impact the rich. It would mainly impact the working class and cut into our retirement savings.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

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.
edit on 13Sat, 02 Dec 2017 13:41:39 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago12 by Greven because: fixed link



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   

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 on election night 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 nearly 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 both 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.
edit on 2 12 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2 12 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2 12 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Aazadan

Source?


The national debt was 18 trillion when Obama left office, it's now 21 trillion.



No, it wasn't. The national debt when Obama left office was $19.57 trillion. Fiscal Year 2017 was $20.244 trillion. That's not even $1 trillion increase. The national debt actually grew more slowly under Trump than it did under Obama.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328




This is horrible for America. How they hell could anyone be stupid enough to believe this is needed when the corporations already have 85% of the money?


Corporations have 85% of the money ?

Try,Try again.

Household assets stand at near $100 trillion dollars.

Compared to less than $25 for corporate.

www.usdebtclock.org...

There's lies and there's DAMN LIES.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
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?

Because, as we all must recognize, in this society, money equates to power/self-determination; the more you have, or can acquire of one, the more you can exert and reap (rape?) the benefits of the other.

Bear in mind also, that at least 90% percent of the tax laws ever written, were written by the wealthy to insure the preservation and enhancement of their wealth.

As more and more of the world’s wealth concentrates into fewer and fewer hands, it would be foolish indeed to expect any consideration or quarter to be offered to the less than wealthy.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

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.
edit on 2 12 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: CB328




This is horrible for America. How they hell could anyone be stupid enough to believe this is needed when the corporations already have 85% of the money?


Corporations have 85% of the money ?

Try,Try again.

Household assets stand at near $100 trillion dollars.

Compared to less than $25 for corporate.

www.usdebtclock.org...

There's lies and there's DAMN LIES.



Whoa, whoa, easy on the facts, they have a narrative to push.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join