• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

60 percent of Americans say Trump tax plan will benefit wealthy (POLL)

60 percent of Americans say Trump tax plan will benefit wealthy (POLL)




Typical Americans are realizing that the Trump/GOP Tax Reform package actually does them no great favors and is not deficit-neutral (it substantially increases the national deficit).

Related: Trumps Tax Plan | ABC Poll PDF

given the wealthy can be anyone making more than the respondent to the poll, you might be dealing with most tax payers since half the country doesn't pay any federal income tax
 
Look, this is the way it works with spending and deficits. The GOP tends to represent people who are well off. The dems tend to represent people who are less well off. Both parties would be happy if things got better for everyone. Naturally.

Correction: the party's tend to represent interest groups, regardless of income. Republicans tend to represent farmers, rural, religious, small business, bigger business, the retired, and traditional industry. The Democrats tend to represent the lowest class, new technology industries, government employees (teachers, civil servants), grant/rent seekers, the non-religious, immigrants (legal and illegal), crony capitalists, and the cultural left.

Both sides claim to represent the middle-class.

Democrats are the party of tax and spend. Republicans are the party of spend but don't tax. If their scheme doesn't work, we have deficits and have to reduce spending.

Correct. The upside of tax and don't spend is that it may force government to cease funding various forms of mooching and special pleadings.

Strangely, the fiscally profligate liberals with all their handouts to the poor (what handouts?) seem to have been better recently at reducing the deficit.
That may be true, but it is also misleading. The deficit may delay the economic cost to overspending, but to keep raising taxes to fund increased spending also has its economic costs.

The multi-general ponzi scheme of Social Security and Medicare are coming apart, even though (on the books) they were "paid for".

Name your poison. History since 1980 suggests that supply side doesn't work. But the GOP keeps on like Wyle E. Coyote, with their new and improved Acme Tax Plan. Beep beep.

Actually history since 1980 suggests that supply side partially works, but does not pay for itself. And history since 1992 suggests that the peace dividend is exhausted (national defense is half of what it once was), productivity rates have ceased growing, and the entitlement rolls are larger than ever. A ten years after the great recession, the US economy has had the slowest recovery in modern history.

Until such time as both parties have the spine to address the need for frugal government, and modest spending, and balanced budgets it will only get worse.
 
Lol, this is such a ridiculous statement. A tax cut isn't giving the "rich" money it is merely letting people keep the money they earn.

You talk about what is morally right but can you tell me why it is morally wrong for a group of people to steal money from a rich person, but it is somehow justified for that group to vote for the government to take it from them.
True.

But someone has to pay for that tax-cut? So who is it?
 
Look, this is the way it works with spending and deficits. The GOP tends to represent people who are well off. The dems tend to represent people who are less well off. Both parties would be happy if things got better for everyone. Naturally.

The GOP feels the solution is to make sure those on top get more, so as to simulate the economy in a trickle down/rising tide lifts all boats manner. Supply side. If they are right, great. If they are wrong, at least their people are better off.

The dems feel the solution is to make sure those below get more, so as to stimulate the economy from below through their increased spending. Demand side. If they are right, great. If they are wrong, at least their people are better off.

Democrats are the party of tax and spend. Republicans are the party of spend but don't tax. If their scheme doesn't work, we have deficits and have to reduce spending. How? Less defense spending? Get serious. Lordy, Lordy, it pains us, but we have to look at entitlements, which they didn't like at the beginning. Rather than eliminate them, let's figure out a way to, say let Social Security benefit finance or Medicare benefit insurance companies. Probably politically impossible, their think tanks still push the dream.

Strangely, the fiscally profligate liberals with all their handouts to the poor (what handouts?) seem to have been better recently at reducing the deficit. Note the deficit reduction in the Obama years and Clinton's balanced budget, for example. On the other hand, I am told that W was the first president in history to go to war while cutting taxes. If I am not mistaken, he resolved some of the bad financial optics by fighting the war off the books.

Name your poison. History since 1980 suggests that supply side doesn't work. But the GOP keeps on like Wyle E. Coyote, with their new and improved Acme Tax Plan. Beep beep.
Excellent post.

The reason why supply-side has not been working, is because of two predominate concepts:

1] We are a consumer driven economy
2] Labor is a demand function


#1 is self explanatory as to why the middle-class need the tax cuts to grow the economy, not the corporate and affluent.

#2 can be contrasted with consumer consumption. Give a middle-class consumer more money, and he will purchase things he needs or desires, including better things of the ones he already has. Give a corporation more money, and they still will not hire employees they don't need, nor buy equipment that they don't need either.

However: The corporations will hire more employees and buy more equipment to satisfy consumer demand, which brings us back to the validity of #1 (vs #2) again.
 
This new tax proposal looks like a last ditch attempt at getting *something* passed by Republican executive, house, and senate, since they have been unable to do anything significant since in power. They talked **** for years under Obama, and when rhetoric finally resulted in them in power...crickets. They had no clue what to do how to do it, or even it appeared who to get support from. (aside from Trump-reality-TV of course).

So after so many failed attempts to pass stupid legislation, here comes this newest tax proposal. A watered down proposal that basically has the bare minimum they hope, to get it passed, and to be able to say they did *something*. I mean, this is in a way the culmination of the Republican party for some 8 years... a silly proposal that changes next to nothing, other than making the ultra-rich, wealthier/a little happier. Wow.

It basically comes down to a large corporate tax break (ultra rich), repeal of estate tax (ultra-rich), and some shifting around of deductions and brackets that has a small impact overall. Not even a big boon to the majority of businesses/small businesses...just the fat cats primarily. How dumb. As if the wealthy elites are not already advantaged by their political clout, their money, their connections, their market control. We need to give them *even more* advantage to out-compete small business, start-ups, etc....what a joke.

How can even die-hard Republicans be excited about it? It's like it's been negotiated down to the bare minimum they hope, to say they did something.

Die hard Republcians arent going to judge the effectivness of tax cuts or tax policies base on Trump hate

" Die hard " Republicans are all for lowering the Corporate tax rate and any tax break and regulatory cut that leads tocutcreased investment in our economy

Canada cut their corporate rate and otther Western European Countries have a lower corporate rate than the US does.
 
True.

But someone has to pay for that tax-cut? So who is it?

So someone has to pay for Americans and bussinesses being allowed to keep more of THEIR hard earned income ?

Thats nonsense. How about cutring spending to pay for it ?
 
This new tax proposal looks like a last ditch attempt at getting *something* passed by Republican executive, house, and senate, since they have been unable to do anything significant since in power. They talked **** for years under Obama, and when rhetoric finally resulted in them in power...crickets. They had no clue what to do how to do it, or even it appeared who to get support from. (aside from Trump-reality-TV of course).

So after so many failed attempts to pass stupid legislation, here comes this newest tax proposal. A watered down proposal that basically has the bare minimum they hope, to get it passed, and to be able to say they did *something*. I mean, this is in a way the culmination of the Republican party for some 8 years... a silly proposal that changes next to nothing, other than making the ultra-rich, wealthier/a little happier. Wow.

It basically comes down to a large corporate tax break (ultra rich), repeal of estate tax (ultra-rich), and some shifting around of deductions and brackets that has a small impact overall. Not even a big boon to the majority of businesses/small businesses...just the fat cats primarily. How dumb. As if the wealthy elites are not already advantaged by their political clout, their money, their connections, their market control. We need to give them *even more* advantage to out-compete small business, start-ups, etc....what a joke.

How can even die-hard Republicans be excited about it? It's like it's been negotiated down to the bare minimum they hope, to say they did something.
If Trump & the GOP were serious and transparent about giving the middle-class a tax break, they'd simply reduce the rates by half as they're doing with the corporations.

Instead, they're cutting the rates of the corps, while playing a smoke-and-mirrors game with the middle-class, to hide the fact that the middle-class we'll have to pay the burden of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Corps get a simple effective rate cut, the middle-class get more convoluted shell games to obfuscate reality.
 
It's amazing to me.

We have experienced major "tax cuts" for the Middle Class since Reagan.

And in this time, we have developed a solid 1% class above the rest, and a top 20% that keeps separating further from the bottom. (I happen to fall within the 20%, so I don't give a ****).

But when are the majority of Americans going to figure out that these "tax cuts" aren't really about them? It's the upper-Middle Class and the wealthy that make out every time. It all has centered around that bad ideology of "trickle down," which was proven to be false during the Great Recession.


In the mean time, here's to building that senseless ideological wall that we...um...Mexico...um we...are going to pay for!
 
Last edited:
So? What is the point of the tax cut? Taking money from the poor to give to the rich isn't morally right, productive to the economy, good policy or even American.

Taking money from the rich to give to the poor is theft. Your point?
 
So someone has to pay for Americans and bussinesses being allowed to keep more of THEIR hard earned income ?

Thats nonsense. How about cutring spending to pay for it ?
Not nonsense at all, despite your dismissing it as such.

Someone indeed has to pay to keep the country running.

This plan is NOT cutting spending. The poor have no money. The corporations and wealthy get a tax cut. So the difference will have to be made up by the middle-class.
 
There's a lot of propaganda out there over the Tax Bill. So unless you have read what was actually being proposed then maybe you shouldn't start a thread over it.

Though I am not in agreement of all things proposed, I think there is a lot of good in this tax bill. Cutting Corporate rate to 20% and for small businesses to 25% is huge. All of a sudden we become competitive globally. And it is my understanding that for those companies that want to return their operations back to the U.S. bringing back jobs get a break on bringing all that wealth back to the U.S that is a huge incentive for U.S. companies to jump on as well as foreign companies wanting to set up operations. This means more jobs that will benefit the college grad that had to settle for a less of a job that he/she is over qualified or blue collar workers that are trained in a craft where opportunities were drying up. Opportunities for good paying jobs abound for both groups.
 
Exactly.

Those who don't get the tax cut - the middle-class.

That's not true Chomsky, Even Wapo gave Democrats 4 Pinocchios for making such statements.
 
There's a lot of propaganda out there over the Tax Bill. So unless you have read what was actually being proposed then maybe you shouldn't start a thread over it.

Though I am not in agreement of all things proposed, I think there is a lot of good in this tax bill. Cutting Corporate rate to 20% and for small businesses to 25% is huge. All of a sudden we become competitive globally. And it is my understanding that for those companies that want to return their operations back to the U.S. bringing back jobs get a break on bringing all that wealth back to the U.S that is a huge incentive for U.S. companies to jump on as well as foreign companies wanting to set up operations. This means more jobs that will benefit the college grad that had to settle for a less of a job that he/she is over qualified or blue collar workers that are trained in a craft where opportunities were drying up. Opportunities for good paying jobs abound for both groups.
I'm not going to deny all that Trump's doing with dereg and Taxes will have some marginal effect.

But I think you're greatly off with jobs returning to the States in any significant numbers.

Taxes mean nothing, if there is not a business case to be made. Why move your manufacturing to use expensive labor in a litigious highly regulated country with high labor rates, when you are already up & running with a cheap and unregulated alternative? It makes no sense.

We're never going to accept jobs with the working standards of 3rd world countries.
 
What makes you think the middle class is not getting a tax cut?
I've seen nothing of substance, besides a very complicated scenario that appears to me to be smoke and mirrors.

But again, if the poor can't pay and the corps and affluent get breaks, who is paying for this?

That is my question.
 
You are asking the wrong person for this :p I believe the federal government should be drastically cut and all these programs should be moved to the state level.

ANOTHER GOP FAIL: New Republican Tax Plan Increases Taxes On High Income Earners | Daily Wire

This plan seems to increase taxes on the wealthy so many should be happy with it.
Well - you are right, in that until we get the whole details and some good analysis, we are guessing.

But the proposed corporate decreases of nearly 50% are a huge loss of revenue.

And I have no faith in the GOP's claim of the number of jobs and rising wages this will produce. Right now the only thing given is the deficit will rise. Meaning our kids owe more.

And I do not for a moment trust their 2T deficit number, because it is based upon their belief of a 5 or 6% growth every year over the next decade due to the tax cut's supposed stimulus effects. I think it's going to be significantly higher.
 
That's not true Chomsky, Even Wapo gave Democrats 4 Pinocchios for making such statements.
I'd like to see that, I'm not aware. If indeed there is a middle class cut - I'm not saying there is - I suspect it will be minuscule in relation to the massive near 50% corporate cut. A mere bone thrown to the masses.

But going by your statement above, if everyone gets a cut, and services are not reduced, who pays to keep the lights on? Are we going to borrow against our kid's income?
 
It is pretty hard to imagine that this crew gets anything passed into law, if that were to actually happen somehow I likely would be concerned.

Congress is completely broken in part because of all of the low quality people we have sent to town, it is not clear that they could get the work done even if they did get a wild hair.
 
I'd like to see that, I'm not aware. If indeed there is a middle class cut - I'm not saying there is - I suspect it will be minuscule in relation to the massive near 50% corporate cut. A mere bone thrown to the masses.
On average, $370 for the second quintile and $940 for the middle quintile.
 
Back
Top Bottom