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 Dems propose tax cut rollback to pay for infrastructure

page: 10
47
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

What does that $35 per week do for your quality of life though? You should be putting at minimum $18,000 into your 401k every year ($24,000 if over age 50), on top of any other savings, and given that I'm guessing you just gave household income another $18,000/$24,000 for your spouse. Does that $35 somehow enable that?

You're also not accounting for long term changes. At your income you'll be clearing a mere additional $50/year by 2027 and everyone making less than you will be clearing less, below $100k you'll actually be bringing in less money.




posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




What does that $35 per week do for your quality of life though?

lol
quality of life eh?
good luck trying to convince people that keeping more of the money they earn is a bad thing....



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Aazadan

$11 per week is a cell phone bill, and netflix
$11 per week is a utility bill
$11 per week is a pair of athletic shoes for a child

You are welcome to dismiss it all you like, it won't be a winning strategy come November.


You're already paying a cell phone bill and a utility bill though. Those aren't additional expenses you're taking on that $11/week somehow enables. $11/week works out to 27.5 cents per hour. You tell me, Taco Bell offers that to people every 90 days, the government just made that up to you in a 1 time temporary increase for a couple years. Which one if either is actually going to impact your quality of life?

Does it appreciably get you closer to making proper savings contributions? The answer to that is no since you still need to be putting $36,000 between yourself and your spouse aside if you want to actually retire one day. And at 50k you're talking about that being about 85% of your post tax income. That $35/week doesn't make up the difference and in 7 years from now you'll actually be paying more in taxes.

Face it, it was a bad bill and a bad plan.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Aazadan




What does that $35 per week do for your quality of life though?

lol
quality of life eh?
good luck trying to convince people that keeping more of the money they earn is a bad thing....


There's plenty of public works projects that need that money. We need a proper cyber security system to secure identities, we need to rebuild roads, our bridges and dam's are mostly rated as failure immininent, our power grid is in shambles, the homeless problem is getting much worse, schools are underfunded (as evidenced by teachers striking for 5% pay raises, which doesn't even offset their salary cuts for the year), and so on. There's a lot of worthwhile places to spend that money that do a hell of a lot more than buy you 2 cups of coffee per week.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I am not talking about myself however I will have a few extra thousand a year(taxed bonuses too) and if I care to I can put it in a 401k or I can take the family on a cruise. My choice. It is not about 'Quality of Life'. It is about making a living. 2 totally different things since you believe everyone should kick 20k into a 401k account when there are those who do not make that in a year and are supporting kids. THEIR choice and they have to make sure they provide. It is not up to the government to provide if they have kids and live outside their means.

35 dollars to A LOT of people in this country means they will have water, power and a place to live as well as eat. Especially if they are making entry level wages.

70% of Americans have no or less than a 1000.00 in savings. For these people, a tax break is the difference between Ramen all week or maybe some proteins or fresh veggies.

www.cnbc.com...

These people would have lost more and more if HRC had been elected and have implemented with the DNC wanted. Wages were stagnant. Jobs were down. A decade of non-growth and now that it is happening the DNC wants to shut it back down because they want slaves not free trade and a working class.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Constitution was amended in 1913 to pave the way for Income Taxes. It was even reversed by the SCOTUS before being ratified in the early 1900's. Our founding fathers were trying to GET AWAY from taxation without representation. Remember that gem in school Krazy?

Income tax was the ushering in of the Progressive movement in the US and has since become the US governments greatest source of income.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Constitution was amended in 1913 to pave the way for Income Taxes. It was even reversed by the SCOTUS before being ratified in the early 1900's. Our founding fathers were trying to GET AWAY from taxation without representation. Remember that gem in school Krazy?

First. The taxing and spending clause of the Constitution isn't in the Amendments. Second. The 16th Amendment is still part of the Constitution anyways. Third. DC has been taxed without representation since it was created. We never got away from the idea of taxation without representation and implement it selectively too. Fourth. Income taxes aren't "taxation without representation" anyways, so that whole point was a red herring to begin with.


Income tax was the ushering in of the Progressive movement in the US and has since become the US governments greatest source of income.

100% irrelevant.
edit on 12-3-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Aazadan

$11 per week is a cell phone bill, and netflix
$11 per week is a utility bill
$11 per week is a pair of athletic shoes for a child

You are welcome to dismiss it all you like, it won't be a winning strategy come November.


You're already paying a cell phone bill and a utility bill though. Those aren't additional expenses you're taking on that $11/week somehow enables. $11/week works out to 27.5 cents per hour. You tell me, Taco Bell offers that to people every 90 days, the government just made that up to you in a 1 time temporary increase for a couple years. Which one if either is actually going to impact your quality of life?

Does it appreciably get you closer to making proper savings contributions? The answer to that is no since you still need to be putting $36,000 between yourself and your spouse aside if you want to actually retire one day. And at 50k you're talking about that being about 85% of your post tax income. That $35/week doesn't make up the difference and in 7 years from now you'll actually be paying more in taxes.

Face it, it was a bad bill and a bad plan.


You need to get out of your upper middle class bubble... it may not seem like a lot to you, but there are some people in where $35 or $50/mo is the difference between being positive and negative cash flow for the month.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I got a idea. let corporations Co fund Infrastructure projects For tax breaks.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

So you bring in about $60k.


I wish. Individually, no, as a household, yes. My payscale doesn't even top out at 60,000.



An extra 1400 is 2%, and you got it as a bonus not as a raise. Furthermore it expires for you after just a couple years.


I got it as a reduction in the 47% effective total tax rate I already pay. Regardless of when it expires, I sure do welcome it now.


Cost of living is 3.5% per year. Congratulations, you lost purchasing power on this.


Man I wish. It costs me a lot more than 3.5% of my income to live. Where do you live that cheaply?

I think any loss of purchasing power has more to do with the unConstitutional non-governmental entity "The Federal Reserve" and their horrendous monetary policies far more so than any tax policies.

If receiving an extra $1,400 a year in lower taxes is hurting your purchasing power, you're welcome to send it to me. I'll shoulder the burden. I accept Paypal, Money Orders, Bitcoin, or bullion... possibly ammunition depending on caliber.



If you're not getting a minimum of a 6% raise every single year you're effectively going backwards.


Well I've been going backwards for the last 20 years or so then. While I did receive a recent raise ( after the $1400 tax relief ), it was only 1.5%.
edit on 3-12-2018 by cynicalheathen because: Fixing tags



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


You're already paying a cell phone bill and a utility bill though.

you assume too much

your $11 per week is enough to get those if one did not have them
i notice you chose not to touch the athletic shoes, that is interesting

the only bad part of tax relief is removing it



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

 There's a lot of worthwhile places to spend that money that do a hell of a lot more than buy you 2 cups of coffee per week.

how someone else spends THEIR money is not my concern
funny how none of these issues were THIS important in the last 8 years
you want to pay the govt more, you are allowed



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
I am not talking about myself however I will have a few extra thousand a year(taxed bonuses too) and if I care to I can put it in a 401k or I can take the family on a cruise.


Bonuses are not raises, they're an increase in money based on your base rate. If you were making $50,000 a 2% bonus is worth $1,000. A 2% raise is worth $1,000 every single year. Raises also compound, 3.5% now and 3.5% next year (as I already covered, that should be your minimum rate due to inflation) results in $3,561.25 over two years. If you were simply getting a 3.5% bonus it's $3,500.

A small difference in a small raise over a small time span, but a very big difference when compounded across two decades working a career. Especially since a raise now will also often result in proportional increases come promotion time (it's flawed logic but companies love to give you a x% raise, so if you were underpaid before, post promotion you're still underpaid... this is also true in reverse). $3,500*30 years is $108,500 while 3.5% increase per year is $190,503. A raise is worth nearly twice as much as an annual bonus at the minimum rate.


2 totally different things since you believe everyone should kick 20k into a 401k account when there are those who do not make that in a year and are supporting kids. THEIR choice and they have to make sure they provide. It is not up to the government to provide if they have kids and live outside their means.


Just because people make mistakes all the time, doesn't mean that it's the financially smart move. That belief is also 20k per person. If you're married your household should be putting away $40k per year. The median income in the US is $59,000. A two provider household should be bringing in $118,000 before taxes. After taxes that leaves you with around $90k. 90k would enable you to put an appropriate amount into savings, pay a $400 mortgage at 3 payments per month, and make two $250 car payments. Not extravagant living, but totally doable. If you want more than that then earn more than 50% of the population which isn't exactly difficult.


70% of Americans have no or less than a 1000.00 in savings. For these people, a tax break is the difference between Ramen all week or maybe some proteins or fresh veggies.


Incomes have very little correlation with savings. Being good with money isn't an ability you magically gain as your income increases. Look up the concept of lifestyle inflation. People end up spending more (often for little return) and winding up in the same spot as before, where they're living paycheck to paycheck and have little in savings. For example, in reference to the statistic you just cited:

www.financialsamurai.com...

They've got a good graphic about halfway down that page, look at the trendlines, savings as a percentage of income remains rather steady regardless of how much they're bringing in.

Increasing income does little to actually address the low savings rates in the US.


Wages were stagnant. Jobs were down. A decade of non-growth and now that it is happening the DNC wants to shut it back down because they want slaves not free trade and a working class.


Wage stagnation has been an issue for 30 years now, since the mid 80's actually. It will likely take an equally long time to turn around. My theory on why has to do with the CPI reforms which influence inflation rate calculations but that's neither here nor there. What is relevant is that one time bonuses and very short term tax cuts won't turn this around or even provide relief.

Jobs have not been down, with the exception of the last year, there has been job growth every quarter since 2010. Wages have not grown or replaced what was lost, but we're essentially back to the employment levels we were at in 2007.


originally posted by: Edumakated
You need to get out of your upper middle class bubble... it may not seem like a lot to you, but there are some people in where $35 or $50/mo is the difference between being positive and negative cash flow for the month.


I'm not in an upper middle class bubble. I've got a nice job where I'm making a good wage right now but this time last year I was still living on $10,000 per year. I haven't forgotten what it's like to live in poverty in the US. If that's your income you're not getting $35/month, you're getting $0/month, but for the sake of argument, even at that income $45 (rounded up from $11/week) is not a lot of money. Most likely it's the difference between a food budget of $100 and $145. That means a little more meat and some vegetables, but it's not life altering. Most of your meals will still be junk food.

Of course, as I said, that's at $10,000/year in income at which point you get $0 from this tax rebate. In order to get $35/month you need to be making about $50k/year which should translate (using the idea of 15% of your budget to food) to changing your food budget from $625 per month to $660 per month which is a very small change.

If you're bringing in $50k annually $35 should not be making the difference between positive and negative cash flow per month. At that income you're bringing in $3500 per month, are you arguing that a 1% change is the difference between making and losing money?


originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Aazadan

I got a idea. let corporations Co fund Infrastructure projects For tax breaks.


They tried it in Japan and it failed miserably. Every road that goes anywhere useful is now a toll road. So now they pay taxes for road upkeep, and then they pay tolls to access the roads. I would rather that not happen here, it would destroy our economy.

edit on 12-3-2018 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
I wish. Individually, no, as a household, yes. My payscale doesn't even top out at 60,000.


Good news then. You don't have to worry about getting an additional $11/week the government has deemed you unworthy of getting that big a tax break.



I got it as a reduction in the 47% effective total tax rate I already pay. Regardless of when it expires, I sure do welcome it now.


If your household isn't even making $60,000 you are not paying an effective 47% tax rate. In income tax you would be paying (assuming filing jointly):
10% on $0 to $18,650
15% on $18,651 to $75,900

In addition to a $12,700 standard deduction.

Assuming there's no random property, stocks, etc to keep track of (I'm sure there is, and those can get complicated but this is just income)

Your household income tax would be $6,162.50 to the feds State and local need added in there too but even if you paid a high rate there of 8% combined you're looking at $9,950 or so. That would be an effective combined rate of 16.58%



Man I wish. It costs me a lot more than 3.5% of my income to live. Where do you live that cheaply?


I must have worded that poorly. 3.5% is the cost of living increase rate annually, aka inflation. If your pay increases at less than that rate annually you are losing money. In fact it has to increase at more than that rate for you to not be behind. If you want to take a fairly simple rate of having your purchasing power triple over a 30 year career (in todays dollars that would mean going from $30k entry to $90k when you retire) you need to bring in a 7.25% raise per year.


If receiving an extra $1,400 a year in lower taxes is hurting your purchasing power, you're welcome to send it to me.


That's the real problem now isn't it. It's not $1,400 a year in lower taxes because the tax cuts were unfunded. In fact not only did we not fund the tax cuts, but we increased spending on top of that. This would work out to a wash if the tax cuts were distributed evenly and retaxed in the future but they weren't. By 2022 your tax cuts are going to have expired to where you're breaking even. By 2027 your income is going to have gone down by $40/week. And that's before we talk about any tax increases to actually fund this program, or alternatively budget cuts (budget cuts just mean you pay for the same service out of pocket, so you're still out the money).

You didn't gain anything from this, if anything you lost money.



Well I've been going backwards for the last 20 years or so then. While I did receive a recent raise ( after the $1400 tax relief ), it was only 1.5%.


Most people have been going backwards. There's several reasons for this, as I mentioned in my previous post I think that CPI is the biggest factor but there's also other reasons too such as individuals choosing to not update their job skills, move into better job sectors, and receive proper educations.

Wage stagnation is the biggest drain on the economy currently but talking about it tends to get shut down in bickering. The truth is, we could change the standard deduction to $60,000/year and let half the people in the US essentially dodge taxes and it wouldn't hurt anything because the $60k and under crowd despite making up 50% of the population only owns 2% of the wealth. They simply don't have any assets worth taxing.

If we want to fix this we need to start shrinking wealth inequality, but any time actions are taken to even look at that, there's cries of government interference in the free market. Taxes aren't taking your money, taking a 7% pay cut every year is however... 3.5% in inflation, 3.5% in the opportunity cost of lost raises.
edit on 12-3-2018 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Aazadan


You're already paying a cell phone bill and a utility bill though.

you assume too much

your $11 per week is enough to get those if one did not have them
i notice you chose not to touch the athletic shoes, that is interesting

the only bad part of tax relief is removing it


If $11/week means anything to you, you're not in a financially secure enough position to have a kid so that shouldn't ever come up if there's any truth to the theory that economics shape personal responsibility.


originally posted by: shooterbrody
There's a lot of worthwhile places to spend that money that do a hell of a lot more than buy you 2 cups of coffee per week.

how someone else spends THEIR money is not my concern
funny how none of these issues were THIS important in the last 8 years
you want to pay the govt more, you are allowed


These issues have been brought up for years, decades even.

And I do pay the government more. I always pay double my federal income tax every year. It's a meaningless gesture on my part because no one else contributes but if everyone did that we would pay off the debt, have a budget surplus, have universal health care, 0% (or close to it) homelessness, eliminate hunger world wide, and more.

That was true in the past, when I was living on $10k/year, and it's true now when I'm living on $100k. In fact, I might pay more than double this year.

Of course, now that I've said that you're going to come back and accuse me of wanting to force everyone to pay more like I already do.
edit on 12-3-2018 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: matafuchs
I am not talking about myself however I will have a few extra thousand a year(taxed bonuses too) and if I care to I can put it in a 401k or I can take the family on a cruise.


Bonuses are not raises, they're an increase in money based on your base rate. If you were making $50,000 a 2% bonus is worth $1,000. A 2% raise is worth $1,000 every single year. Raises also compound, 3.5% now and 3.5% next year (as I already covered, that should be your minimum rate due to inflation) results in $3,561.25 over two years. If you were simply getting a 3.5% bonus it's $3,500.

A small difference in a small raise over a small time span, but a very big difference when compounded across two decades working a career. Especially since a raise now will also often result in proportional increases come promotion time (it's flawed logic but companies love to give you a x% raise, so if you were underpaid before, post promotion you're still underpaid... this is also true in reverse).


2 totally different things since you believe everyone should kick 20k into a 401k account when there are those who do not make that in a year and are supporting kids. THEIR choice and they have to make sure they provide. It is not up to the government to provide if they have kids and live outside their means.


Just because people make mistakes all the time, doesn't mean that it's the financially smart move. That belief is also 20k per person. If you're married your household should be putting away $40k per year. The median income in the US is $59,000. A two provider household should be bringing in $118,000 before taxes. After taxes that leaves you with around $90k. 90k would enable you to put an appropriate amount into savings, pay a $400 mortgage at 3 payments per month, and make two $250 car payments. Not extravagant living, but totally doable. If you want more than that then earn more than 50% of the population which isn't exactly difficult.


70% of Americans have no or less than a 1000.00 in savings. For these people, a tax break is the difference between Ramen all week or maybe some proteins or fresh veggies.


Incomes have very little correlation with savings. Being good with money isn't an ability you magically gain as your income increases. Look up the concept of lifestyle inflation. People end up spending more (often for little return) and winding up in the same spot as before, where they're living paycheck to paycheck and have little in savings. For example, in reference to the statistic you just cited:

www.financialsamurai.com...

They've got a good graphic about halfway down that page, look at the trendlines, savings as a percentage of income remains rather steady regardless of how much they're bringing in.

Increasing income does little to actually address the low savings rates in the US.


Wages were stagnant. Jobs were down. A decade of non-growth and now that it is happening the DNC wants to shut it back down because they want slaves not free trade and a working class.


Wage stagnation has been an issue for 30 years now, since the mid 80's actually. It will likely take an equally long time to turn around. My theory on why has to do with the CPI reforms which influence inflation rate calculations but that's neither here nor there. What is relevant is that one time bonuses and very short term tax cuts won't turn this around or even provide relief.

Jobs have not been down, with the exception of the last year, there has been job growth every quarter since 2010. Wages have not grown or replaced what was lost, but we're essentially back to the employment levels we were at in 2007.


originally posted by: Edumakated
You need to get out of your upper middle class bubble... it may not seem like a lot to you, but there are some people in where $35 or $50/mo is the difference between being positive and negative cash flow for the month.


I'm not in an upper middle class bubble. I've got a nice job where I'm making a good wage right now but this time last year I was still living on $10,000 per year. I haven't forgotten what it's like to live in poverty in the US. If that's your income you're not getting $35/month, you're getting $0/month, but for the sake of argument, even at that income $45 (rounded up from $11/week) is not a lot of money. Most likely it's the difference between a food budget of $100 and $145. That means a little more meat and some vegetables, but it's not life altering. Most of your meals will still be junk food.

Of course, as I said, that's at $10,000/year in income at which point you get $0 from this tax rebate. In order to get $35/month you need to be making about $50k/year which should translate (using the idea of 15% of your budget to food) to changing your food budget from $625 per month to $660 per month which is a very small change.

If you're bringing in $50k annually $35 should not be making the difference between positive and negative cash flow per month. At that income you're bringing in $3500 per month, are you arguing that a 1% change is the difference between making and losing money?


originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Aazadan

I got a idea. let corporations Co fund Infrastructure projects For tax breaks.


They tried it in Japan and it failed miserably. Every road that goes anywhere useful is now a toll road. So now they pay taxes for road upkeep, and then they pay tolls to access the roads. I would rather that not happen here, it would destroy our economy.


I agree with you in terms of what people should be doing financially, but that is not necessarily reality.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, there is a large population of people who need that extra 50 a month no matter how insignificant it may seem to you and I.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




If we want to fix this we need to start shrinking wealth inequality

Had you stated this earlier, this discussion would have been vastly different.




If $11/week means anything to you, you're not in a financially secure enough position to have a kid so that shouldn't ever come up if there's any truth to the theory that economics shape personal responsibility.

Nice
So now poor people cant have kids as well?
That is some world you live in.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: rickymouse
I think it is better if we create more manufacturers so that more people can pay in taxes. Sometimes I wonder about those Democrats, who the hell are they working for anyway, the EU? Maybe China or Russia, somehow I think their minds have been compromised, we should take care of our own first, creating taxpayers.


We create more manufacturers....how do WE do that?

people do that, and people don't want to pay a livable wage..so they open a plant in China.

Now, don't get me wrong, manufacturing will one day return to the USA, once robots are cheap and efficient enough to fully automate their plants so they don't have to pay for chinese slave labor.


You remind me of when Obama asked if Trump had a magic wand for 3% growth.


Pointless. Oh...echo chamber points. gotcha.

Tell me, do you run a business?
Would you buy your materials that you use and sell for 1$ a pound, or 20$ a pound?
What if the 20$ a pound was made in the USA, and the other in China....I am sure you would be patriotic and buy the 20/pound of course...granted, your business would flop because your competitor did the opposite, but principles and stuff.

oh...but Trump is such a savage he is gonna make it to where its only 15$ a pound!!!

Yep...so....cant beat China unless we enact slavery and remove all regulations...and give land to the corporations...and don't tax em.

But hey, I am sure you got your own magic wand

Tariffs...oh, wow...gonna charge 20% extra for steel beams. so what they will do is just draw a smiley face on a beam and import it as art. Its symbolic


Wow, that's a lot hyperventilating.

Short term it will be expensive until we get manufacturing back up to meet demand.
And yes I own a side business. And in that business, everything I use is made in Chinese factories. I have no choice in my sector. But if i had the choice..
edit on 12-3-2018 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: dothedew
Democrats: "You will get mealy peanuts!"

Also Democrats: "We need those peanuts pumped back into government! Think of all the roads we can build!"

F them and the taxpayer funded horses they rode in on. They want to take the money, the PEOPLE'S MONEY that they should be getting back, and pour it into quite possible one of the most wasteful programs in the entire country.

It goes without saying though, whenever they see a an extra dime of someone else's money, they immediately think of a plan to spend it, as well as an upcoming plan to spend another $10 of your money that you can't afford to begin with.

This is opposed to the Republican tax plan of cutting taxes without first figuring out how to pay for government expenses that didn't change.


We do have it figured out. Shrink government.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   
If all it took to fund infrastructure was the money we've been taxed for the last 8 years plus any extra that was also cut, then why on earth weren't they funding freakin' infrastructure with it already?

Can anyone answer that because none of that infrastructure was being funded and all that money was going to other things.

So does anyone in favor of this really, really think that this time, this one time it will actually be spent on infrastructure if you let them pick your pocket for it?

... because I don't.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join