Senate Dems propose tax cut rollback to pay for infrastructure

originally posted by: Edumakated
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.

They'll still need it after the tax cut though. We can argue about the reasons why... lifestyle inflation, monetary inflation, poor budgeting, an increase in the price of gas, changes in auto loan terms, or anything else. It's not going to make a difference.

I'm no expert on money management but I do know the basics. The tax cut simply isn't big enough to make a substantial change here. We live in a country where over 2/3 of people don't have the resources to pay an unexpected $400 car repair without a credit card. To an extent, cash in hand makes a difference as below a certain amount (which varies by area) one simply cannot afford to save anything. But these tax changes aren't adding any money to people at that income level, they're weighted to your overall tax contribution, and since lower incomes contribute very little to the overall tax burden, they're seeing very small changes to the tax rate.

As I said, I've been poor recently. I remember living on $10,000 and suddenly getting an extra $250/month, raising me from $10,000/year to $13,000/year. That was an absolutely huge change to my lifestyle. It suddenly meant I was able to eat halfway decent food and not worry about keeping gas in my car. Of course, that was also a 30% increase in income and was a big chunk while I was poor. Getting an extra $600 a year back when you're already bringing in $60k is not anywhere near as big a change.

I understand the optics of getting more money and the psychology behind getting something extra but tax rates are not what is hurting the poor. What's hurting them is wage stagnation which is a mix of inflation and lack of raises in the US workforce. My earlier estimate was that these combine for an effective 7% pay cut per year, but back when 5% raises were the standard that would actually combine for an 8.5% pay cut per year. The work force is getting screwed.

I've already said my piece on how government can address this, but I think the people need to take some responsibility too. People need to start learning how to negotiate better, and focusing more on personal development so that they have more leverage with a company. It is absolutely insane to me that wage negotiation, which is something people will only do on average 13 times in their entire life is something we don't make a point of teaching, give very few adult education classes on, don't encourage, and for the most part ignore in society when those 13 conversations are the most influential contributor to your financial status over your entire life.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Nice
So now poor people cant have kids as well?
That is some world you live in.

They can, it happens all the time. Most kids, even the ones that are planned happen earlier than planned. However, the smart financial move is to keep it in your pants until you can support a family comfortably.

Personally, I don't like the idea of limiting reproduction only to the wealthy but that idea naturally leads to the creation of a welfare system which supports children and their families. I'm all for that, but doing so means we as a society need to pay taxes to fund it. Those very same taxes we just cut.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Had you stated this earlier, this discussion would have been vastly different.

Sorry, I thought it was implied in my arguments. Giving the wealthy millions in tax breaks, the middle class a couple hundred dollars, and the poor nothing is going to be a large contributor to wealth inequality and only increase the disparity.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
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..

You'll never have the choice unless it becomes just as cheap to manufacture domestically as it is to manufacture in a nation where the employees make $1/day. It is impossible for US workers to compete with such a large difference between economic zones. Therefore, it is impossible for US workers to compete. They should focus on industries where that competition doesn't exist.

Remember, competition doesn't exist to create winners... it exists to create losers. There can be only one winner.

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

States are supposed to fund infrastructure. When Obama had his plan, we gave all the money to the states, and then it disappeared into the void to make up budget shortfalls. The same will happen this time unless the feds strongarm the states and manage it themselves.

For as much as I think the federal government is mostly ok, I'm very skeptical of state governments. There isn't anywhere near as much transparency on them so they tend to operate in the shadows and do whatever the hell they want.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
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..

It won't be expensive, because nothing will change. The tariff is symbolic. Again, this is specifically for aluminum and steel as raw resources...and again, draw a smiley face on it and it no longer is raw resource..its art. There are loopholes you can fly a 747 through...but people are gullible enough to think this will have some effect.

We are no longer a manufacturing nation. We are a consumer nation...time we face reality and work within those parameters as our specialty. Consumers do run the world, so there isn't even a real need to try to pretend we can get manufacturing jobs back. Those jobs will all be done by robots in 30 years anyhow regardless of what nation they are in.

I want to reiterate a point I made.

There is only 1 reason the dems are arguing how to begin the rebuild our nations infrastructures plan instead of screaming bloody murder to stop it and not fund it. And the media too. Only one reason. Why are they not declaring how Trump cannot spend this money, only Congress can. Why are they not talking about how broke we are? How he has no way to pay for it? How it will be impossible for congress to approve it. How the dems must attach the bill to the wall, or dreamers, or etc...

How come they all pretty much act as if it is a given?

Why the emphasis on steel all of a sudden in trade talks?

Only one reason!!!
Manufacturing is coming back. 800,000 new workers who had previously dropped out of the labor market just reentered last month alone.
America is going back to work! Why?
What is the ONLY reason it can happen like this?
The 1.5 trillion is already in the US treasury appointed as money to rebuild USA infrastructure and is the hidden power behind all of Trumps current trade talks.
For the first time in a long time... America first Mutha luvas

a reply to: Aazadan

If the states are supposed to do it, then the Democrat plan should be a non-starter and what Obama did was illegitimate.

There is no winning on this.

If infrastructure is a function of the fed, then you can't escape the fact that restoring the higher tax rates to pay for it is only begging the question as to why that money wasn't being used for it previously.

If infrastructure is *not* a function of the fed, then there is no reason to hike taxes to do something the fed is not empowered to do.

And if states aren't handling their budgets properly, then they should fail accordingly until they get it right.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

If the states are supposed to do it, then the Democrat plan should be a non-starter and what Obama did was illegitimate.

There is no winning on this.

If infrastructure is a function of the fed, then you can't escape the fact that restoring the higher tax rates to pay for it is only begging the question as to why that money wasn't being used for it previously.

If infrastructure is *not* a function of the fed, then there is no reason to hike taxes to do something the fed is not empowered to do.

And if states aren't handling their budgets properly, then they should fail accordingly until they get it right.

Trump is going to kill the fed. The fed is dead.
Before the crash in 2008 the big banks owned 17% of everything in the US economy. Today they own 47% of everything. A day of reckoning is approaching

a reply to: bulwarkz

Like I care.

Sooner or later, the account is going to come due and it's going to be ugly when it happens.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: bulwarkz

Like I care.

Sooner or later, the account is going to come due and it's going to be ugly when it happens.

ewwww, almost sounds like you have a dog in the fight

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

If the states are supposed to do it, then the Democrat plan should be a non-starter and what Obama did was illegitimate.

There is no winning on this.

If infrastructure is a function of the fed, then you can't escape the fact that restoring the higher tax rates to pay for it is only begging the question as to why that money wasn't being used for it previously.

If infrastructure is *not* a function of the fed, then there is no reason to hike taxes to do something the fed is not empowered to do.

And if states aren't handling their budgets properly, then they should fail accordingly until they get it right.

What Obama did was fine, he gave the money to the states to spend as they saw fit. Budgets tend to be pretty fluid though (it's the same reason using lottery funds to fund schools has been a failure) since in accounting terms, once money is earmarked for something it means money that hasn't been earmarked can be redirected elsewhere. The end result is that we didn't spend any additional money on infrastructure.

This budgetary failure will be repeated if Trump gives the states money. The only way infrastructure spending can work is if an outside entity funds it and that means the fed needs to direct how the money is used in the states. We also can't let each state run their own system to tax and spend, because the states don't have the money. Their legislatures are even less functional than congress and they would never be able to get the funds set aside. At least congress can direct funds, and even use deficit spending to pay for it if they can't get a tax passed.

The states are supposed to do it, the states like usual have failed the people and not done it. It's time for the feds to step in since they can actually get it done.

originally posted by: bulwarkz
Only one reason!!!
Manufacturing is coming back. 800,000 new workers who had previously dropped out of the labor market just reentered last month alone.
America is going back to work! Why?
What is the ONLY reason it can happen like this?
The 1.5 trillion is already in the US treasury appointed as money to rebuild USA infrastructure and is the hidden power behind all of Trumps current trade talks.
For the first time in a long time... America first Mutha luvas

161,000 jobs were added last month, not 800,000. I have no idea where you got that number from, but job growth was about the same as it's been since 2010. In fact, the only time in the last 9 years where job growth numbers haven't been positive was in the last few months.

Did you know that there's more jobs in the US in manufacturing today than there were 30 years ago? 19 million now vs 18 million then. The only real difference is that those jobs are no longer considered highly paid work today. They pay near minimum wage while they used to be upper middle class jobs. What is desirable in the economy has changed, not the availabiity of the work.

I've seen this first hand. Most people working in factories are dirty, low education, no skilled drones. As part of my job duties, whenever I visit a new factory for my employer (once every 2-4 months) I get a plant tour. The majority of the equipment is low margin equipment sold in bulk. Conditions are noisy and dirty. It's made in an assembly line. People are basically drones putting in their piece. There is no skill involved, and it's clearly not high dollar work. However, every now and then I visit one of the high tech plants with high margin items. They're well lit, clean enough that you can eat off the floor, mostly involved in circuitry rather than mechanics, the workers need actual skills to jump from station to station, it's not pure assembly line, and all the workers have Master's degrees in various sciences. They're also all very well paid.

There's two types of manufacturing going on in the US these days, there's the low skill jobs which everyone wants to see come back to the glory days... and that will never happen. And then there's the people who kept up with industry changes, and are doing what needs to be done, and being rewarded for it. Stop holding people to the standard that all they should need to do is bend some metal all day long. Get an education, design and build a gene sequencer... then you have something worth manufacturing.

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.

Well, considering that I have seen a $35/bi-weekly increase in my check due solely to taxes, that's a $17.50/week tax break. Maybe they like me?

If your household isn't even making $60,000 you are not paying an effective 47% tax rate.

I only said that as an individual I don't make $60,000. Rounded to the nearest thousand, my household made $80,000 last year.

In the past, when I have gotten bored, and broken it down deep into what I am paying in corporate taxes that are passed on, and all hidden taxes, my household tax burden typically falls into the 42-47% range.

For the sake of argument, I just took a little time to run the numbers on just the basics ( Federal, state, local, and sin taxes ) to break it down Barney-style for everyone.

All numbers are rounded to make things easier to digest, and are taken from actual back-of-the-envelope numbers from my household's 2017 fiscal year. See, the thing about keeping a budget is, it's easy to see where your money goes.

Federal - 7400
State - 3400
Social Security - 4900
Medicare - 1100
Gasoline Tax - 390
Sales taxes on Groceries alone - 930
Property and License Tax - 1000
Tax on Vehicle Purchase - 275
Utilities taxes - 200
Sales Taxes on Misc Purchases - 1000
( Hidden ) Excise taxes on guns/ammunition - 180
( Hidden ) Sin taxes on Liquor/Beer - 350
Total of basic taxes - 21125
Percentage of gross 26.4%


This is not including any corporate, regulatory, or import taxes that are passed along to the consumer. When I have done the research/math in the past, based off of my actual purchases and a lot of reading, I came to the conclusion of the 42-47% number previously stated.

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.

Well whose fault is that? Is it the responsibility of the individual to better their standing in life, or the governments?

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.

Who is responsible for setting the wages? I've worked minimum wages jobs and still been able to make headway in life, rent an apartment, pay bills, etc... all on $15,000 a year as the sole wage-earner. I didn't have much, but I worked on myself, and so did my wife, and here we are today. If my average self can do it, anyone can. Contrary to popular belief, nobody owes you anything.

If I don't have any assets worth taxing, then why do I pay at least 26.4% of my wages in taxes?

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.

You want to fix wealth inequality, End the Federal Reserve. It is the single biggest driver of financial and monetary inequality in the world. Fractional Reserve banking is close behind. Make the Federal Government run on a balanced budget. No loans against future children's and grandchildren's wages. My household has to do it, why can't they?

I'm not actually against reasonable taxes, provided it can be shown that the money is being spent responsibly. As it stands, our government is run by a bunch of drunken frat boys who have a pocket full of daddy's credit cards and no regards for the future bills.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
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..

It won't be expensive, because nothing will change. The tariff is symbolic. Again, this is specifically for aluminum and steel as raw resources...and again, draw a smiley face on it and it no longer is raw resource..its art. There are loopholes you can fly a 747 through...but people are gullible enough to think this will have some effect.

We are no longer a manufacturing nation. We are a consumer nation...time we face reality and work within those parameters as our specialty. Consumers do run the world, so there isn't even a real need to try to pretend we can get manufacturing jobs back. Those jobs will all be done by robots in 30 years anyhow regardless of what nation they are in.

We are a service economy, and you're talking about events 3 decades out.

Show me these smiley faces too, and I'll tell you if they are art.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
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..

Remember, competition doesn't exist to create winners... it exists to create losers. There can be only one winner.

The consumer.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually, Income Tax was not introduced until the Civil War. There were tariffs and poll tax but no modern equivalent to the Income Tax. That is what we are discussing, right?

The 16th Amendment made Income Tax a permanent part of the US taxation system.

As I stated. the SCOTUS ruled that Income Tax was unconstitutional because of the 10th Amendment.

Finally, the Progressive movement that implemented this is VERY important to where we are as a country today.

a reply to: Aazadan

Most people working in factories are dirty, low education, no skilled drones...

Really? Those are the people who will benefit from a tax break but since you think they are # on your shoe I guess it does not matter. Be careful no one causes an OSHA incident on your plant visit by 'accident'.

a reply to: matafuchs

You don't understand that ruling you are talking about. They didn't rule that ALL income taxes were unconstitutional. You should read up on it and do some homework.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

The Supreme Court did not rule that all income taxes were direct taxes. Instead, the Court held that although generally income taxes are indirect taxes (excises) authorized by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, taxes on interest, dividends and rents in the 1894 Act had a profound effect on the underlying assets. The Court ruled that the tax on dividends, interest and rent should be viewed as a direct tax, as they fell on the property itself, rather than as an indirect tax. Direct taxes were required to follow the rule of apportionment found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3.

Furthermore:

Three years after ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad. In Brushaber, the Court reviewed the history of the dichotomy between excises (indirect taxes) and direct taxes. The Brushaber Court noted that the 1913 Income Tax Act was written as an indirect tax and did not violate the rule of uniformity and so it was not written as a direct tax and thus was not subject to the rule of apportionment. The Court summarized what it had decided in Pollock and then went on to state the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment with respect to income taxes:

[T]he command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to the rule of apportionment by a consideration of the source from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class.[13]

The Sixteenth Amendment removed the requirement for those income taxes deemed to be direct in substance (such as taxes on income from property) to be apportioned among the states according to population. Thus, the effect of the Pollock decision has indeed been overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment.[11][14][15][16][17]

The Court in Brushaber also noted that before Pollock, taxes on income from professions, trades, employments, or vocations were excises. They were indirect in both form and substance and therefore had never been apportioned and so they were entitled to be so enforced afterwards.[18]

By contrast, with respect to taxes on income from property, the Pollock decision had disregarded form and considered substance alone. Justice White's decision in Brushaber shows how the Sixteenth Amendment was written to prevent consideration of the direct effects of any income tax laid by Congress.

Finally, the Progressive movement that implemented this is VERY important to where we are as a country today.

Not to the discussion we are having. Unless you want to purposely taint it with partisan bickering.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
The consumer.

The consumer wins sometimes, but the consumer doesn't always win. The most competitive product is not necessarily the best product. I'll give you an example, disposable items, or items that are built to need replaced every year tend to dominate the marketplace, that leads to repeat purchases and greatly increased revenue for the company providing that product. It however is an inferior product to an item that would last 10 or 20 years.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Aazadan

Most people working in factories are dirty, low education, no skilled drones...

Really? Those are the people who will benefit from a tax break but since you think they are # on your shoe I guess it does not matter. Be careful no one causes an OSHA incident on your plant visit by 'accident'.

There's no OSHA violations, they take that seriously. It's just that lower margin products don't get the same attention in using more up to date techniques. And in turn get lower quality workers.

And no, those people won't benefit from a tax break. They're not making much before or after taxes. As I went over before, they're taking a minimum of a 7% pay cut every year between inflation and a lack of raises. Their effective tax rate is probably around 13%. You tell me, over say a 5 year span which has higher impact? A one time reduction of taxes, or actually fixing wage growth?