Add FedEx and Home Depot to the list of who are trickling down

a reply to: nwtrucker

Leftists have a really fu** up way of thinking. They think that by taxing and regulating business some more than they will magically make more money. No kiddies, the corporations will just move to China along with the jobs, then we have to hear leftists bi17ch about inequality and low wages which they help create in the first place. Trump makes America competitive again with his economic nationalist policies. Trump is actually helping the working man and slowing down globalism, but leftists are too ignorant to realize it.

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: nwtrucker

Leftists have a really fu** up way of thinking. They think that by taxing and regulating business some more than they will magically make more money. No kiddies, the corporations will just move to China along with the jobs, then we have to hear leftists bi17ch about inequality and low wages which they help create in the first place. Trump makes America competitive again with his economic nationalist policies. Trump is actually helping the working man and slowing down globalism, but leftists are too ignorant to realize it.

Many of the left base may not realize it, but do you really think the Democrat Party...and the Republican Elite don't?

I'm beginning to think the elected left would rather have total control over a third world, banana republic version of the U.S. than than a world leader that was our standard.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Byrd

Based on the personal exemption raise and the tax bracket changes, I don't see how the wealthy are getting a greater tax break than the middle class. Many in the middle class are getting a 100% tax break since their personal exemption now means they will no longer pay any income tax. Others are seeing their tax brackets lowered on what's left. The higher tax brackets have barely lowered at all.

To be honest, I haven't run the numbers. I know that my husband and I and my kids are getting more back this year... but to be honest, we seem to be getting back more than the kids will get.

Part of my negativity has to do with the previous tax plans (including the first Trump "greatest tax plan in the world" ... the not-really-tax-plan put on the White House website.) The beneficiaries were the wealthy and there were no moves to close up the loopholes that the wealthy use. Many of the wealthy pay no income tax at all; money that could go to government operating expenses.

Taking in less money combined with a budget that seems to be all over the map worries me, particularly with a government that seems determined to cut services or throw them into the hands of private organizations that either may not have enough money or (worse) may have an agenda (only serving members of a certain faith... only Mormons or Buddhists, for example, or demanding that you convert before you get services.)

I read today that there are jobs not being filled at the VA because of budget and this drive to decrease government. I worry that this means very negative things to my military family. Tax cuts really won't help pay for therapy or for cancer treatments. A good single-payer health care plan would help and frankly I'd give up the tax break to see that kind of help available for everyone. That and funding for universities and colleges. American's falling behind in the sciences - you probably aren't in a position to notice it, but believe me it really is happening.

I think we can agree that the good thing about our government is that it CAN be changed. Midterms may not make either of us happy (and the next election's bound to disappoint one of us) but if things get too bad for the country we do have a system where it can be shifted.

The whole thing's like trying to turn one of those huge oil tankers or a big cruise ship, though... you need a lot of room for a turn and a well-coordinated crew and the thing doesn't turn on a dime. If we can get politicians who work with each other and can maybe craft compromise legislation that gives everyone something (even if they don't get their heart's desire), I think that would be best for the country.

Always a pleasure to cross swords with you...

a reply to: Byrd

Just one thing.

Many of the wealthy pay no income tax at all; money that could go to government operating expenses.

That's not true. There may be a couple of people who have pulled off the greatest rigging of tax code, but ~50% of federal income taxes are paid by the top 1%. To say that many wealthy people don't pay taxes is demonstrably false.

a reply to: Byrd

Part of my negativity has to do with the previous tax plans

Mistrust in government... well understandable.

Taking in less money combined with a budget that seems to be all over the map worries me, particularly with a government that seems determined to cut services or throw them into the hands of private organizations that either may not have enough money or (worse) may have an agenda (only serving members of a certain faith... only Mormons or Buddhists, for example, or demanding that you convert before you get services.)

That is the difference between static and dynamic scoring. Using static scoring, you are absolutely correct - this tax plan will eviscerate the budget. Using dynamic scoring, it will actually improve the revenue stream because the base for taxation, the GDP, will increase so dramatically. And we are already seeing dramatic increases in GDP.

No one uses static scoring in personal budgets. We all have some idea of what the future will bring, and we plan based on future expectations, not on present circumstances. I see people in school all the time who are going back in order to get a substantial raise at their work. If they did not figure in the raise, taking more school would be folly. Including the future raise, it is an excellent investment.

That's all that Trump is doing. History shows that the GDP increases as taxation rates lower; that's no conspiracy theory. Taking expected GDP growth into account makes the numbers far more feasible, and could even create a surplus after time. It is too soon to expect that, but a substantial decrease in the deficit is certainly within the realm of reality.

As to the outsourcing, I tend to side with you on that. I am suspicious of attempts to marry government and industry, because the two have vastly different priorities. Government exists to exist, hopefully via pleasing the population. Industry exists to profit, and as long as they keep buying, the population be damned. Those are not two philosophies which are easily merged.

I do not, however, know of any faith-based organizations that require conversion in order to receive help. Such would seem to be against reason. I do not doubt they exist in some form, but I do doubt that attitude is prevalent. Present information? Certainly. Require conversion? No.

That and funding for universities and colleges. American's falling behind in the sciences - you probably aren't in a position to notice it, but believe me it really is happening

Actually, I am in a perfect position to notice it, and I do not disagree. I actually support Bernie's idea of free college, although just not to the degree he endorsed. I believe acceptance into a free college program should be automatic for those showing the aptitude and ability, and should continue as long as they succeed. For instance, the top percentile of high school graduates should receive automatic acceptance to a two, four, six, or eight year paid college program in their chosen field (within reason), based on their past performance, as long as they maintain their GPA during their college career. I can see upward mobility, i.e. "second chances" for those who are willing to advance their acceptance level later in life. I just can't agree with free tuition for everyone. For too many today, college is the new baby-sitters club, and that is our real problem in academia.

The whole thing's like trying to turn one of those huge oil tankers or a big cruise ship, though... you need a lot of room for a turn and a well-coordinated crew and the thing doesn't turn on a dime. If we can get politicians who work with each other and can maybe craft compromise legislation that gives everyone something (even if they don't get their heart's desire), I think that would be best for the country.

And therein we agree wholeheartedly. We have much to fix in this country, but if we never move the wheel, the ship can never turn around. I remember my high school civics teacher, way, way back in time, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, saying, "Sometimes a good leader can't go along with the popular opinion... sometimes he has to drag the country kicking and screaming until they realize they are better off."

I hope we soon realize we are better off. We are certainly kicking and screaming.

The feeling is mutual.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The only point I have disagreement with your post-I hate having to respond only to points of disagreement, but that's the way it's rigged- Free university? Absolutely not.

Did we have 'free university' when we were the world leader in technology? The answer to that is clearly no. Other nations did and they didn't come close to matching the U.S. did they? Therefore, it isn't the real reason behind falling behind technology-wise and one can assume free university won't fix it.

I haven't delved into the subject as this point as it only came to mind reading your post.

On top of that glaring fact is those of us would have to pay, via taxes, subsidize, those to earn upwards of one million dollars more in their working lifetimes than those of us who didn't attend university? I will pass thank you very much.

Your post actually has two areas that would merit threads, in and of themselves. The merging of corporations and gov't. Where did it start? I suspect the 'common-law' marriage between energy producers and gov't via the utilities.

There may be earlier versions, railroads, etc. but it is worth exploring, yes?

The other would be as I comment on. The REAL reason/s behind lagging behind technology-wise with other nations.

It 'could' be as simple as there's one heck of a lot of talent on this planet that lies outside the U.S. and as they've more or less copied our system....to some degree, it stand to reason they, also, will make discoveries and advances. Yes?

Again, no free university. If there's shortages in certain areas let the industries, themselves, pay for/subsidize the trade/technical education to keep up.

Outside of defense and perhaps energy/environment, I see no place for gov't and tax dollars in any event. JMO, though.

a reply to: nwtrucker

There is a technical school near me that serves the entire county. I remember it being built. The big question at the time was, who is going to pay for it? It is geared toward high school students in the day... students can elect to take a half-day of technical instruction instead of some of the academic courses and get a certificate of achievement in their field. The fields include HVAC repair, automotive mechanics, drafting, machine shop, welding, etc.

There were those who argued that the students should pay the full cost of tuition... several thousand dollars per year... and then those who said the state should pay. Their argument was that few could afford the tuition, and by training workers and working with industry, those workers would wind up making a higher income and paying more taxes on it, offsetting the tuition cost.

The state subsidy option won out.

Since then, that trade school has become the leading industry driver in this county, responsible for the majority of industries here, being here. It has raised tax revenue many times the cost of subsidizing that tuition, and has improved the lives of more students than anyone can count.

It is not really "free." Students don't get pampered; they get treated like adults and are expected to either succeed in their chosen trade, or they flunk out. I went there; it's hard work to succeed and totally different from the typical school atmosphere. But that's why it works, and something similar would likely work with secondary education as well. As long as some sweat is put in the game by those participating, it will succeed. There are other currencies than dollars.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I can't argue it....except the slippery slope mechanism. The vote buying 'freebie' crowd never settles for a compromise. They always push for more...and more.

I'm fine with secondary level options that you cite. My line in the sand at that point. Not university, though.

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is actually a push by DeVos to have local districts partner with industry concerning career skills that are in short supply. This is already happening in other countries where in some sectors skilled labor is in short supply. This makes a lot more sense to me than the mindless "everyone must go to college" path we have been pushing for the last 20 some years.

Not to worry. Any monies trickling down to the working class will pale in comparison to savings corporations are reaping. And that does not even get into the $1.4 trillion deficit the tax reforms will generate. Guess who gets to pay for that?

originally posted by: tabularosa
Not to worry. Any monies trickling down to the working class will pale in comparison to savings corporations are reaping. And that does not even get into the $1.4 trillion deficit the tax reforms will generate. Guess who gets to pay for that?

You might read the thread and the reality of the deficit before citing that very inaccurate number. Apple, alone, is bring back around 350 Billion into the U.S. from offshore and paying around 35 billion in taxes in doing so. Then there's that 300 billion generating new tax revenues down the road which is outside that hard 1.4 number. ....as long as the damned Congress doesn't decide to spend even more than it generates, that is.

Here's hoping....

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: SgtHamsandwich

All I heard during the Obama administration was how doubling the national debt didn't matter, and that if you were concerned with our debt load, you didn't understand economics.

Now suddenly they are fiscally conservative (except for reducing spending, of course).

As I'm understanding it its less about Democrats being fiscal conservatives, but rather the actual conservatives who were bitching about how apocalyptic and awful it was (under Democratic leadership) now raising the debt even higher than under the Democrats. I feel like the applicable word here is hypocrisy.

a reply to: Wayfarer


As has been pointed out earlier, growth means it is not a zero-sum style loss. If a business lowers it's prices by 10% does it automatically result in a 10% loss to income? No, it could actually lead to more income. Corporate taxes are the price of doing business in the US. Repatriation and investment as a result of lower taxes can result in a net gain in time. Will that happen here? I'm not sure, but I do like the odds based on the 44% climb in the market since the election coupled with repatriation we've already seen.
Raising taxes either too high or too low (much like pricing) will both be a game of diminishing returns, and striking a balance is important. This brings us more in line with other countries internationally for corporate tax rates. I'm not sure why a move which many consider will lead to growth (and is doing so demonstrably already) and more revenue (taxes) leading to less debt is hypocrisy.


Edit: I'm led to understand by your post that you don't actually have a problem with increasing the debt load, so I'm curious on what you are basing your opposition for tax cuts on.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Byrd

Just one thing.

Many of the wealthy pay no income tax at all; money that could go to government operating expenses.

That's not true. There may be a couple of people who have pulled off the greatest rigging of tax code, but ~50% of federal income taxes are paid by the top 1%. To say that many wealthy people don't pay taxes is demonstrably false.

50% of the taxes when they own 80% of the wealth isn't exactly a fair distribution.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Did we have 'free university' when we were the world leader in technology? The answer to that is clearly no. Other nations did and they didn't come close to matching the U.S. did they? Therefore, it isn't the real reason behind falling behind technology-wise and one can assume free university won't fix it.

It was very close to free actually. More accurately, heavily subsidized.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Did we have 'free university' when we were the world leader in technology? The answer to that is clearly no. Other nations did and they didn't come close to matching the U.S. did they? Therefore, it isn't the real reason behind falling behind technology-wise and one can assume free university won't fix it.

It was very close to free actually. More accurately, heavily subsidized.

It may have been heavily subsidized, but no one had free university.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Byrd

Just one thing.

Many of the wealthy pay no income tax at all; money that could go to government operating expenses.

That's not true. There may be a couple of people who have pulled off the greatest rigging of tax code, but ~50% of federal income taxes are paid by the top 1%. To say that many wealthy people don't pay taxes is demonstrably false.

50% of the taxes when they own 80% of the wealth isn't exactly a fair distribution.

Yeour right!! It is unfair.

Abou 50% under this tax plan don't pay any taxes..

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Yeour right!! It is unfair.

Abou 50% under this tax plan don't pay any taxes..

The tax plan I prefer would have zero corporate taxes, everything would be run through income taxes with zero deductions and follow a simple formula.

Amount you made/Amount entire country made * that years federal budget. If you make 1% of the income in the country, you pay 1% of the budget. If you made 1/1 billion of the income, then you pay 1/1 billion of the budget.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Wayfarer


As has been pointed out earlier, growth means it is not a zero-sum style loss. If a business lowers it's prices by 10% does it automatically result in a 10% loss to income? No, it could actually lead to more income. Corporate taxes are the price of doing business in the US. Repatriation and investment as a result of lower taxes can result in a net gain in time. Will that happen here? I'm not sure, but I do like the odds based on the 44% climb in the market since the election coupled with repatriation we've already seen.
Raising taxes either too high or too low (much like pricing) will both be a game of diminishing returns, and striking a balance is important. This brings us more in line with other countries internationally for corporate tax rates. I'm not sure why a move which many consider will lead to growth (and is doing so demonstrably already) and more revenue (taxes) leading to less debt is hypocrisy.


Edit: I'm led to understand by your post that you don't actually have a problem with increasing the debt load, so I'm curious on what you are basing your opposition for tax cuts on.

That's a fair argument and I don't have a problem with that line of thinking in a general sense, however I was led to believe that there is no historic basis to be used as reference for an action of this level achieving the growth required to offset the deficit being created (re: the hypocrisy comment). It just seems like a lot to prove (and conveniently something that Trump won't have to deal with, as he'll be out of office and we'll be 2 more presidents down the line before we can conclusively say one way or another how well his prediction that growth will overtake the debt increase actually pans out).

Secondly, you are correct that I don't have a problem increasing the debt limit for altruistic reasons, but if the net effect is >75% to enrich the already enriched (wealthy 1%) then I can't help but view the sweet sweet $500 tax break given out to the everyman as a fair trade for adding 1.5 trillion to the national debt so the Koch brothers can buy their 12th private A380 (you know, the one they fly only on groundhog day).

I'd abandon the income tax altogether. National sales tax would be my preferred method. Make basic food stuffs exempt. VAT on big ticket items. Nobody gets hidden breaks. No obscure rules. Think of how easy enforcement would be. And if you want to subsidize your lobbyist, you have to be more upfront than writing it into obscure tax code (this is probably why it will never happen).