Trump Tax Plan will be Devestating to Seniors and Poor People

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: amazing

If military bases were costing us $100 billion per year (they aren't) and congress pensions were costing us $100 billion per year (they actually only cost us about 200 million). You're still talking about $200 billion.

Do you realize our annual budget is 5000 billion per year? Taking 200 billion out of it is less than 1/2 of 1% of our expenses. There is basically nothing left to cut in any substantial amounts, and even if you were to take all of the insubstantial things and add it together, you wouldn't even get to a 5% cut in spending.

Remember though that our Military budget is about 4 trilliion per year. We could cut that in half easily without hurting our safety one bit. As far as our intelligent agencies ...our black budget is easily over 50 billion per year and we dont' even know what that goes for. I'm telling you we could cut trillions off of our federal budget each year and be just as well off. our government is bloated beyond reason.

originally posted by: amazing
Remember though that our Military budget is about 4 trilliion per year.

No it's not. It's $600 billion.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: amazing
Remember though that our Military budget is about 4 trilliion per year.

No it's not. It's $600 billion.

Not true, not when you count in the war costs. Trust me, we're paying trillions per year for our military and military operations.

a reply to: Aazadan

In the US yes, but that's because our small business definition is insane...

It's not really possibly to exactly define what makes one business small and another not. Take farming, for instance.

Even a family farm can have assets of well over $1 million. The land itself, the equipment needed to farm it, and the contracts required to get the seeds are all expensive. It's rare to see a new family farm started, because it costs so much to do. Most existing family farms were started back when land was plentiful and cheap, and have simply evolved as the market and technology grew. They make no more for the family than a good regular job, but have much greater assets. Compared to factory farms, they are small, but compared to, say, a convenience store franchise, they have much more in the way of assets.

Every business is different.

Like you, I think 5000 employees disqualifies one as a small business, but that is what it is.

I have plenty of desire for knowledge. I just don't see the point in constantly digging into a 450 page document, that's written for precision rather than ease of understanding, when that document is guaranteed to change. I've brought up my issues with the bill, but it's gone through the House at this point. If/when the Senate passes something we can see what they wind up with, and get an idea of what a reconciliation bill is going to look like.

That is the basis of our disagreement. Neither of us knows what the final bill will have in it. However, by not reading the bill as it is now and instead listening to pundits, you have made many statements that, at this point, are simply untrue. For example, your assertion that it removes educational deductions... it does not! It removes a section that used to provide educational deductions, but which no longer is in effect, and replaces it with a new set of educational deductions. You then base your calculations and your opinion on that incorrect information and you wind up looking like you have no idea what you are talking about.

When specifics began to be raised, I looked up the bill on my own and searched through the applicable sections to verify the information I was presented. It took a few hours. I then linked you to the bill text and gave you the exact sections that were applicable. You still refused to even look at it. That is the same thing as though you were given a coding project, and you were told that there was pre-written code that would help you complete the project, but you refused to even look at it because of who wrote it... not a good habit for someone who wants to succeed in software development.

Yes, the bill will change... but at least I have an idea for now what one side of the debate wants. I'll get the other side when the Senate gets off their lazy butts. Then I will be able to make an informed decision on what sections I support and what sections I do not, without depending on someone else to tell me what I think.

That's worth a few hours to me.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: amazing
Not true, not when you count in the war costs. Trust me, we're paying trillions per year for our military and military operations.

Iraq and Afghanistan have cost $2.4 trillion over 15 years. That's $160 billion per year. Added to our defense budget, that still puts our military at under $800 billion per year.

And another study, professional economists have come out.

www.npr.org...

37 out of 38 economists asked said this tax plan would balloon the debt. The only economist who disagreed later said he misread the question and agreed with his peers.

a reply to: Aazadan

I'm getting cynical in my old age... sorry, but I don't trust NPR.

"37 of 38 economists agree" could mean that the poll used a random sampling of economists where 38 were polled at random, or it could mean that 38 economists were specifically handpicked. I'm going with the latter at this point, simply because of the source.

I'm sure CNN will pick it up and run with it, though.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

NPR did not conduct the poll.

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's a hand picked panel.

our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States.

Judging by the list of universities and knowing the political makeup of them, I think it's safe to assume its tilted heavily to one sides opinions.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

I'm getting cynical in my old age... sorry, but I don't trust NPR.

"37 of 38 economists agree" could mean that the poll used a random sampling of economists where 38 were polled at random, or it could mean that 38 economists were specifically handpicked. I'm going with the latter at this point, simply because of the source.

I'm sure CNN will pick it up and run with it, though.

TheRedneck

CNN didn't conduct that poll, neither did NPR. It's from Chicago Booths School of Business. Here's the actual poll
www.igmchicago.org...

On that poll is included a list to the participants, and their resumes.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I think it's safe to assume its tilted heavily to one sides opinions.

Why?

Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars.

You can review each panelist's polling history, as well as see their specific comments. If you wish.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
Judging by the list of universities and knowing the political makeup of them, I think it's safe to assume its tilted heavily to one sides opinions.

Why assume? The poll itself (which is linked to in the article) says who they are
www.igmchicago.org...

a reply to: Phage

NPR did not conduct the poll.

Duh... NPR reported it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

On that poll is included a list to the participants, and their resumes.

Not much of a resume area. It lists major accomplishments only. That really tells me nothing about the person and their political bias.

There's an old saying: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Now, I don't really hold that saying to be completely true, as I have met many instructors who are quite capable in their field. Usually, they are simply retired and wish to give back. But I have also met many instructors who fit that saying very well. They know the books, but as far as practical applications... let's just say they're much better at teaching theory.

So, back to the cynical part... it is published by NPR and conducted by a school I have never heard of. There is no mention I have found of how the participants were selected. That's enough reason for me to discount it as more propaganda.

Here's an idea... let's implement Trump's policies fully and compare the results to the predictions. If they are accurate, we'll listen to them next time.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Here's an idea... let's implement Trump's policies fully and compare the results to the predictions. If they are accurate, we'll listen to them next time.

We already did that one under Reagan. It didn't work. We had to scramble to create a whole bunch of tax increases to repair it and the middle class never recovered as we're still dealing with the wage stagnation it caused.

For that matter, this plan doesn't even fit within budget rules unless we use dynamic scoring, which is a BS concept in the way it's being used.

More coming out. The bill specifies that unborn children can be the beneficiaries of 529 plans, which are college savings accounts. The definition of a child here, specifies life as beginning at conception. This would effectively outlaw abortion as murder at any stage of development should it pass.

Using the tax code to dictate social policy...

a reply to: Aazadan

We already did that one under Reagan. It didn't work.

Under Reagan, I had my choice of jobs, made a good income, could afford to buy things I needed, and I had health insurance. If that's your idea of "not working," I hope and pray the tax bill passes and doesn't work!

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

The bill specifies that unborn children can be the beneficiaries of 529 plans, which are college savings accounts.

Section and paragraph, please?

Barring that, I doubt a tax bill could be twisted into an abortion ban legally. Usually the definitions include "for the purpose of this section" or something to that effect, meaning the definition holds no weight where other laws or bills are concerned. The purpose would likely be to allow parents to start saving for college 9 months earlier... how is that a bad thing?

I think, assuming that is the case, that there should be a clause that requires repayment of any tax advantages gained if the election is taken and an abortion is later performed... that would be a loophole.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Section and paragraph, please?

Page 96 of the bill, towards the bottom it defines it.

The purpose would likely be to allow parents to start saving for college 9 months earlier... how is that a bad thing?

They're already allowed to do that.

I think, assuming that is the case, that there should be a clause that requires repayment of any tax advantages gained if the election is taken and an abortion is later performed... that would be a loophole.

It is, and not one they closed. In fact they opened it by allowing you to take one childs college fund and move it to another child. They also added some language so that parents can take money from it tax free.