Democrats in High Tax States Plot To Blunt Impact of New Tax Law

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: DanDanDat

Exactly. This tax giveaway trapped the middle class. There are no other loopholes for them. The rich democrats will recoup with a bigly tax cut.

Most middle class taxpayers are seeing a benefit from this tax plan. Even left-leaning tax organizations have had to admit this. It's a fact you cannot change.

As for pissing and moaning about loopholes, ever take the standard deduction? The standard deduction is actually a giant loophole specifically designed for the lower and middle class. If you are married and your itemized deductions only amount to a few thousand dollars, they let you take a $24,000 deduction instead. You're getting a bigger deduction than you'd actually be entitled to if you itemized. That's the very definition of a tax loophole. Around 70 percent of taxpayers take the standard deduction under the old tax laws. Under this law it will be even more. The majority of them are poor or middle class. Many rich people itemize.

If you stop being so obsessed with what the rich have and focus on yourself, you might be happier. But by all means, keep worrying about everyone else's life and crying that everything isn't fair, like a 4 year old. Holy # you people are never happy. They could tax the rich at 100% and you'd still find something to whine about.

a reply to: face23785

I’m glad you will do well under new tax plan.
I don’t mind giving away a trillion dollars. I’m not sure a one time $800 tax cut is worth it to me. But, when republicans spend, deficits don’t matter and it’s good times for all.

a reply to: Byrd

This is going to be a BIG deal come November of this year. Republicans wrote an attack against Democrats into their legislation and that will come back to bite them in the ass.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: face23785

I’m glad you will do well under new tax plan.
I don’t mind giving away a trillion dollars. I’m not sure a one time $800 tax cut is worth it to me. But, when republicans spend, deficits don’t matter and it’s good times for all.

A lot of people are gonna do well under the new tax plan, not just the rich. You got lied to, and you loved it. The deficit impact has been explained to you over and over but it doesn't fit your narrative. The deficit impact was calculated by the CBO projecting a 1.9% average GDP growth over the next 10 years. I challenge you to find a 10 year period where the US's average GDP growth was that low. There's probably one or two, but it's exceptionally rare. If we average in the mid 2% range, which is more realistic, the additional revenue will make up the gap. We're growing over 3% right now. Everything you think about this tax plan is based on blatant lies. But by all means keep crying about the rich because they don't give you enough free stuff. If you spent as much time hustling and grinding as you did complaining you'd probably be rich yourself.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Byrd

This is going to be a BIG deal come November of this year. Republicans wrote an attack against Democrats into their legislation and that will come back to bite them in the ass.

So rich liberals in blue states won't vote Republican in November because of this? Yeah, they're so screwed without all those votes they were never gonna get anyway.

You guys really are grasping at straws lately.

a reply to: face23785

Yep the bill that is supposed to fix something that isn't currently broken will do IMMENSELY good things for that not currently broken economy. It certainly won't break it because the fixes the bill provides are unneeded or anything. (that was sarcasm btw)

It IS funny though to see conservatives being highly supportive of a bill that will add massive debt to the national debt. I thought that was Democrat territory?

a reply to: face23785

It’s all because no one cares about the deficit so no opposition to the spending. Democrats know when the government spends money, someone gets it. Takes money to make money.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: face23785

It’s all because no one cares about the deficit so no opposition to the spending. Democrats know when the government spends money, someone gets it. Takes money to make money.

Yeah, so just keep ignoring what I said about the deficit because it doesn't fit your narrative. Even if the bill would add that much to the debt (which it won't, as I already explained to you about 4 times in various threads and you just keep pretending you can't read), it's a drop in the bucket. Without the tax bill, we're projected to be about $30T in debt by 2028. With the tax bill, if their projection is right (which it isn't), it would be $31T instead. OMG the sky is falling! Thirty trillion, meh, but thirty ONE trillion will break the US!

Put your brain back in, please. Our debt and deficit are largely driven by entitlements, not tax cuts.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Yep the bill that is supposed to fix something that isn't currently broken will do IMMENSELY good things for that not currently broken economy. It certainly won't break it because the fixes the bill provides are unneeded or anything. (that was sarcasm btw)

It IS funny though to see conservatives being highly supportive of a bill that will add massive debt to the national debt. I thought that was Democrat territory?

See posts above, it won't add massively to the debt, that's a demonstrable lie. You can argue all you want whether it fixes anything but it helps a lot of middle class people and poor people, and it doesn't cost as much as you liars are pretending it does. When you have to make # up to make your point, you've lost.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Yep the bill that is supposed to fix something that isn't currently broken will do IMMENSELY good things for that not currently broken economy. It certainly won't break it because the fixes the bill provides are unneeded or anything. (that was sarcasm btw)

It IS funny though to see conservatives being highly supportive of a bill that will add massive debt to the national debt. I thought that was Democrat territory?

See posts above, it won't add massively to the debt, that's a demonstrable lie.

Proof? Your posts above contain no proof or sources either. So I'm going to continue to disbelieve you here. Everything I've read says it will add to the deficit. You are the first to try to lie to me and tell me otherwise.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Yep the bill that is supposed to fix something that isn't currently broken will do IMMENSELY good things for that not currently broken economy. It certainly won't break it because the fixes the bill provides are unneeded or anything. (that was sarcasm btw)

It IS funny though to see conservatives being highly supportive of a bill that will add massive debt to the national debt. I thought that was Democrat territory?

See posts above, it won't add massively to the debt, that's a demonstrable lie.

Proof? Your posts above contain no proof or sources either. So I'm going to continue to disbelieve you here. Everything I've read says it will add to the deficit. You are the first to try to lie to me and tell me otherwise.

I've posted it in enough threads, it falls on deaf ears. You don't want to be told the truth. I'm not lying to you, you're lying to yourself. Go read the CBO report. They depended on a 1.9% GDP growth rate over the next 10 years to come up with those numbers. That's absurd. If the GDP is higher than they projected, that increases revenue, which reduces the deficit. This is high school economics.

a reply to: face23785

I think republicans have become numb to how much a trillion is. But, let’s enjoy the big spenders while we can. When the democrats are in majority, the deficit hawks will make us miserable again.

a reply to: face23785

Nice cop out for not posting proof. Again. I just don't believe you. I'm not going to do your research for you. If you don't want to post it, oh well. I'll just call you a liar.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Where's your proof?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Nice cop out for not posting proof. Again. I just don't believe you. I'm not going to do your research for you. If you don't want to post it, oh well. I'll just call you a liar.

So you haven't read the CBO report? That's "doing my research for me"? That's getting informed on this issue, which you're obviously not.

a reply to: face23785

Still no sources? Still a liar in my book.

But hey, since you are lazy, I'll prove you are a liar: CBO report

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Still no sources? Still a liar in my book.

But hey, since you are lazy, I'll prove you are a liar: CBO report

That's a summary. The actual report is more than 1 page. Looks like you're the liar.

a reply to: face23785

Yet you didn't post any sources to back your claim up. Lol. Come on guy. Do you just not know how to link things on ATS or something?

PS: I also fail to see how a summary would be incorrect. Usually summaries summarize the content of the item. If the summary says the debt will raise by $1.4 trillion then it reasons so does the main body of text.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Yet you didn't post any sources to back your claim up. Lol. Come on guy. Do you just not know how to link things on ATS or something?

PS: I also fail to see how a summary would be incorrect. Usually summaries summarize the content of the item. If the summary says the debt will raise by $1.4 trillion then it reasons so does the main body of text.

The summary doesn't contain all the numbers used to calculate the $1.4T, which is what we're talking about. If you fail to see that, you fail to even understand what we're talking about here.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Yet you didn't post any sources to back your claim up. Lol. Come on guy. Do you just not know how to link things on ATS or something?

PS: I also fail to see how a summary would be incorrect. Usually summaries summarize the content of the item. If the summary says the debt will raise by $1.4 trillion then it reasons so does the main body of text.

Since you absolutely refuse to read the actual CBO report and get informed on this issue, here I'll do your research for you.

Source: Wall Street Journal

The actual budget hole is smaller than $1.5 trillion because the GOP budget is scored on a “current law” baseline. This assumes that tax breaks that are “current policy” will expire and more revenue will flow to Treasury. This is worth more than $400 billion over 10 years, which means the budget “hole” is closer to $1 trillion out of the $43 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projects in revenues over the next decade. In other words, this is a modest net tax cut even assuming no additional economic growth.

CBO’s estimates are inherently speculative because no one knows when the next recession might hit or what some future Congress might do. But CBO has typically underestimated the growth and revenue feedback from tax cuts. A classic example is the 2003 cut in the tax rate on capital gains. Dan Clifton of Strategas Research notes that in January 2004, eight months after the tax cut passed, CBO predicted $215 billion in capital-gains revenue through 2007. The actual figure? $377 billion. CBO underestimated economic growth and how much investors would cash in their gains.

CBO’s roughly $43 trillion revenue estimate also depends on a projection of average economic growth of 1.9% a year. But the U.S. economy has never grown that slowly for so long. CBO says that every 0.1% increase in GDP adds about $270 billion in revenue over 10 years. That means a mere four years at 3% growth—the U.S. historical norm—could fill a $1 trillion hole. An average growth rate of even 2.4% over the decade would more than fill the hole.

In other words, the only way the tax plan "costs" $1T or $1.5T is if our economic growth of the next 10 years sits at 1.9%, which is a completely unrealistic estimate. If it's higher, the plan will cost less. If it's 2.4% or higher, which is a completely reasonable expectation, the plan will actually be revenue neutral. If you don't believe WSJ, you can read the CBO report and do the math yourself. The numbers are relatively simple to work with.