• 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!

Tax increases for the middle class this week and net neutrality next week!

Quote from the same link you provided "This would be good news for everyone currently in the top two brackets (35% and 40%). These taxpayers would see their effective rate drop down to 33%, by 2 and 7 percentage points respectively. Conversely, the simplification would bad news for the taxpayers in the lowest bracket (10%). These would see their effective tax rate go up by 2 percentage points, to 12%.

But even in the middle, where many would stay in the same bands as before (25% and 33%), there would be losers as well as winners. Most people in the 15% bracket would drop down to a 12% rate. But a tiny sliver of top earners in this bracket (earning between $37,500 and $37,650) would have the misfortune of seeing their effective tax rate go up by 10 percentage points, to 25%.

A similar thing would happen to the old 28% bracket: taxpayers with incomes between $91,150 and $112,500 would drop three percentage points to 25%, while those between $112,500 and $190,150 would see their tax rate go up 5 percentage points to 33%.

All income amounts quoted here apply to single filers (left side of the graph); but the graph also shows the changes for joint filers (on the right). The calculation is pretty easy – double the amounts for the single filers.

The graph does not take into account other aspects of the Trump tax plan not directly related to the changes to income tax bands, such as the increase of standard deductions and a cap on itemized deductions, although of course these would also have an impact on net incomes." Hardly a tax cut when millions upon millions are not seeing a decrease. This is why this is called a 1% tax cut. People living in NY, Conn, Mass NJ, Virginia (especially Northern) Ohio Florida California. etc etc will see a substantial increase mainly due to the loss of itemized deductions.....

Best viable plan in a long time that I have seen.
 
But at least I am not afraid to say what positions and political leanings I fall under. :lamo

do you actually have anything or no? so far i guess not so have an nice day.
 
Why are the corp rates permanent, but ours temporary then?

And the Bush tax cuts were only partially extended. The top rate reverted back.

As I said, this is not the end of the federal income tax code modification by any means. The rate for the top (1.4%?) tax bracket was raised yet the bulk (the remaining 98.6%?) of the tax payers saw no bracket rate impacts when "Obama" altered the "Bush" tax rates. When (if?) the "Trump" tax rates (and other modifications) are passed that in no way limits future congress critters (or POTUS "mandates") from changing the federal income tax code in the near (or far) future. Just as we saw with "10 year" budget bills they do not last anywhere near ten years before congress critters change those "permanent" spending levels.
 
Thank you! This article clearly explains what net neutrality means. Why it’s called that, I’ll nevderstand. From the link, for others...



I still don’t quite understand it. But I do think the Internet should be regulated just as a utility is, because, in effect, it IS. Does that mean I’m FOR net neutrality or AGAINST it? I’m so confused.

The article does say no one’s seen the proposed legislation though. Cart! Get behind horse!


With net neutrality, Comcast is free to offer multiple different speeds of internet access for sale, however, for each speed all content is delivered equally. So let's say you have a 50 mbps download speed line. Fox News videos, NYT articles, and Netflix streaming is all delivered at that 50 mbps speed.

Without Net Neutrality, Comcast can sell you a 50mbps line, but if they want to hurt Netflix, they can keep your Fox Video download speed at 50 mpbs, but drop your Netflix to 1 mbps (aka, you won't be able to watch it). Further, they could do that but then charge you an extra $20 "Netflix access fee" to let you get Netflix at the 50 mpbs speed.



Getting rid of net neutrality just a handout to the Comcasts of the world. It will **** the consumer and it will allow them greater means to abuse monopoly power. That, of course, is why they try to sell the idea by saying that getting rid of net neutrality gets rid of "stifling regulation."

Well yeah, the regulation stifles Comcast's ability to screw you even more than they already can.
 
How man times do you cry wolf?

So how much are my taxes going to be raised? I make almost $100k annual.

What's your reason for supporting the plan? How much do you expect that your taxes are going to be reduced?
 
With net neutrality, Comcast is free to offer multiple different speeds of internet access for sale, however, for each speed all content is delivered equally. So let's say you have a 50 mbps download speed line. Fox News videos, NYT articles, and Netflix streaming is all delivered at that 50 mbps speed.

Without Net Neutrality, Comcast can sell you a 50mbps line, but if they want to hurt Netflix, they can keep your Fox Video download speed at 50 mpbs, but drop your Netflix to 1 mbps (aka, you won't be able to watch it). Further, they could do that but then charge you an extra $20 "Netflix access fee" to let you get Netflix at the 50 mpbs speed.



Getting rid of net neutrality just a handout to the Comcasts of the world. It will **** the consumer and it will allow them greater means to abuse monopoly power. That, of course, is why they try to sell the idea by saying that getting rid of net neutrality gets rid of "stifling regulation."

Well yeah, the regulation stifles Comcast's ability to screw you even more than they already can.

Thank you. First time I’ve really understood it.
 
Thanks. And I wonder why they did that....? Perhaps it is designed to give them a problem to solve and beat drums about during future election campaigns. I’m so cynical about BOTH sides of the aisle as to make this seem likely. It follows an old saying that I will most definitely massacre here, but here’s a lame attempt anyhow: “Just remember, every problem campaigners, especially incumbents, claim they want to solve was probably created by them in the first place.”

Troof ...

if the Ds are in power when those taxes expire, the Rs can beat them up whichever route they (the Ds) choose. Extend the individual tax cuts? "Dems are being fiscally irresponsible!! We don't have the resources to fund the continuation of this irresponsible tax cut (even though we created it in the first place)". Dems axe the tax cut? "Dems are big fat meanies taking away your tax cut!!"
 
What's your reason for supporting the plan? How much do you expect that your taxes are going to be reduced?

With my deductions, I expect no changes if what was posted earlier is correct.

Reducing the top marginal rate is going hand in hand with eliminating some writeoffs. It makes it more balanced for those with high incomes and few writeoffs. I think consumption should be taxed rather than income, and reducing corporate tax rates will help lessen our trade imbalance.
 
Thank you! This article clearly explains what net neutrality means. Why it’s called that, I’ll nevderstand. From the link, for others...



I still don’t quite understand it. But I do think the Internet should be regulated just as a utility is, because, in effect, it IS. Does that mean I’m FOR net neutrality or AGAINST it? I’m so confused.

The article does say no one’s seen the proposed legislation though. Cart! Get behind horse!

In a nut shell it means that you will pay a lot more for what you are already getting. If you cannot figure that out, I do not know what to say.
 
do you actually have anything or no? so far i guess not so have an nice day.
Said quite a lot. You refuse to acknowledge. Your loss.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
I'm perfectly content getting a tax cut for 6 - 10 years.
And I recognize your right to speak for yourself. But many respectfully disagree with this tax bill.
 
Thanks. And I wonder why they did that....? Perhaps it is designed to give them a problem to solve and beat drums about during future election campaigns. I’m so cynical about BOTH sides of the aisle as to make this seem likely. It follows an old saying that I will most definitely massacre here, but here’s a lame attempt anyhow: “Just remember, every problem campaigners, especially incumbents, claim they want to solve was probably created by them in the first place.”
It seems one impetus might be the procedural requirement of not using the regular legislative process. They can't exceed the new debt number provided in their recent budget proposal (1.5B), so the use of temporary cuts to individuals effectively shows their new 1.5B deficit prediction is bogus.

But the even more cynical amongst us (read: me), may also see this as giving the GOP cover to pander to their corporate donors, over that of individuals.

The question of course, is why make the individual tax-payers cuts rescind, rather than rescinding the corporate cuts? It seems clear to me who this bill is serving.

And perhaps even more importantly, why not open up the legislative process to full regular order, in order to provide legislation supported by the entire citizenry? Something not temporary or Executive Ordered and easily over-turned, but lasting legislation supported by the people? That's how you make America great.

In the end there's only so much revenue cutting that can be done, without cutting benefits & services. Someone has to pay the bills, and it seems the GOP have designated individuals and and small business to pay more. The double whammy is with less revenue, government services will have to be cut. So individuals get murdered twice, so to speak.
 
It isn't my fault you have abandoned reasoned discussion. It isn't a generic insult. It is a condition where people that were reasonable in discussion have ceased to be reasonable due to the election of Donald trump.
B.S.

It's an insulting generic ad hominem tossed out by those devoid of argument and evidence.

However your link has nothing to do with what the OP mentioned or argued.
There is a reason that the OP didn't link anything because here is nothing out here that supports his argument.
You know my argument is also speaking to Trump in the larger sense, but it indeed is specifically applicable here as well.

Trump associates himself with a cesspool of fraud artists and criminals.

He pulled something similar here, when he licensed his name to a failed Toronto condo project, where many lost their shirts. No different than his university.
 
As I said, this is not the end of the federal income tax code modification by any means. The rate for the top (1.4%?) tax bracket was raised yet the bulk (the remaining 98.6%?) of the tax payers saw no bracket rate impacts when "Obama" altered the "Bush" tax rates. When (if?) the "Trump" tax rates (and other modifications) are passed that in no way limits future congress critters (or POTUS "mandates") from changing the federal income tax code in the near (or far) future. Just as we saw with "10 year" budget bills they do not last anywhere near ten years before congress critters change those "permanent" spending levels.
I don't buy this argument, because the GOP chose which group to prioritize, and we see the result.

But even going along with your argument, this shows their 1.5B deficit prediction is bull****. They're kicking the can down the road, expiring the tax cut, and adding to the deficit. And you & I get stuck with the bill. Quite frankly, you're hoping the future Congress'es will bail this mess out. And that's a hope I surely am not willing to base my personal finances upon!

Meanwhile the corps and Trump are gold. Their cuts are permanent.
 
I don't buy this argument, because the GOP chose which group to prioritize, and we see the result.

But even going along with your argument, this shows their 1.5B deficit prediction is bull****. They're kicking the can down the road, expiring the tax cut, and adding to the deficit. And you & I get stuck with the bill. Quite frankly, you're hoping the future Congress'es will bail this mess out. And that's a hope I surely am not willing to base my personal finances upon!

Meanwhile the corps and Trump are gold. Their cuts are permanent.

Each person's share of the current national debt is now about $60K (meaning that a family of four's share is about $240K) and nobody seems to much care. $1.5T added to the debt over ten years is "only" $150B/year which is not much out of the $4T of annual federal spending. After seeing Obama running average annual deficits of $1T it is hard to believe that adding $150B to the annual deficit is going to be seen as a big deal. Nothing that congress critters do as far as budgeting is "permanent" - if the demorats get back to having the congressional majority then they can raise taxes on "the rich" and corporations as much as they care (dare?) to.
 
Each person's share of the current national debt is now about $60K (meaning that a family of four's share is about $240K) and nobody seems to much care. $1.5T added to the debt over ten years is "only" $150B/year which is not much out of the $4T of annual federal spending. After seeing Obama running average annual deficits of $1T it is hard to believe that adding $150B to the annual deficit is going to be seen as a big deal. Nothing that congress critters do as far as budgeting is "permanent" - if the demorats get back to having the congressional majority then they can raise taxes on "the rich" and corporations as much as they care (dare?) to.

OK, but projected deficits under current law are about $1 trillion per year - $10 trillion over 10 years. So they're not only ignoring the current projected deficits, they're adding to them. The current projected deficits are therefore $1,200B per year, which is quite a bit bigger than $150B.

And I really don't quite see how this works politically for the GOP. They tell us that they'll tackle spending cuts next year, but how's that going to work? They can't use reconciliation again, and why would Democrats sign onto, say, big cuts to Medicare without demanding repeal of the estate tax cuts for Paris Hilton and the rest of the lucky sperm club, for example, as a starting point for negotiations. Entitlement reform will by definition hit the middle class, poor and old. If they want cooperation with the other side on that I see no option other than HIGHER taxes on the wealthy, not lower, so that those guys can answer to their middle class, poor and old voters that those folks aren't going to have to shoulder the whole burden - the top 1% will kick in their part too.
 
Each person's share of the current national debt is now about $60K (meaning that a family of four's share is about $240K) and nobody seems to much care. $1.5T added to the debt over ten years is "only" $150B/year which is not much out of the $4T of annual federal spending. After seeing Obama running average annual deficits of $1T it is hard to believe that adding $150B to the annual deficit is going to be seen as a big deal. Nothing that congress critters do as far as budgeting is "permanent" - if the demorats get back to having the congressional majority then they can raise taxes on "the rich" and corporations as much as they care (dare?) to.
If you'd like to justify increasing the deficit and debt in a rising rates environment, be my guest.

The latest figures I saw showed our debt service is currently over 6% of government expenditures, and a 1 percent increase in rates will push debt service to just over 10% of expenditures. 10%! That can buy a lot of healthcare and education, rather than the cutting that is going to occur in order to give the corps this massive gift.

I'm Keynesian. I believe in spending our way out of recessions, and running a surplus with deficit reduction during prosperity. But we are not in a recession, and there's no reason to support spending our kids' money, while cutting their services & benefits, for this corporate giveaway. A giveaway that's been shown not to work, as seen under Bush.
 
After seeing Obama running average annual deficits of $1T it is hard to believe that adding $150B to the annual deficit is going to be seen as a big deal.
$150B is a 15% increase in the deficit, are you kidding?!
 
And I recognize your right to speak for yourself. But many respectfully disagree with this tax bill.

Count me in.

As if the overall direction wasn't totally partisan and focused on benefit for the wealthy enough already ...

... the bill targets graduate students for thousands of dollars each.

They are changing the rules such that tuition waivers (for which grad students pay off by working for the school for low wages as teachers, lab conductors, test graders, etc.) are to be considered income.

Thus students must pay income tax on tuition waivers:

- thousands of dollars
- due immediately each year (as per the IRS)
- exceeding any rational concept of having students be able to pay.
- not covered by guaranteed student loan programs or other methods of covering or at least delaying payment.

Basically, they are raising a barrier to block students from middle and lower income families from considering this level of education.
 
Last edited:
Count me in.

As if the overall direction wasn't totally partisan and focused on benefit for the wealthy enough already ...

... the bill targets graduate students for thousands of dollars each.

They are changing the rules such that tuition waivers (for which grad students pay off by working for the school for low wages as teachers, lab conductors, test graders, etc.) are to be considered income.

Thus students must pay income tax on tuition waivers:

- thousands of dollars
- due immediately each year (as per the IRS)
- exceeding any rational concept of having students be able to pay.
- not covered by guaranteed student loan programs or other methods of covering or at least delaying payment.

Basically, they are raising a barrier to block students from middle and lower income families from considering this level of education.
And that's amongst many other anti-middle-class items. There's a lot to detest in this bill.
 
RE: Net neutrality ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-net-neutrality-rules/?utm_term=.3e8a6f1b5624

"The repeal of those rules would be one of the more significant deregulatory efforts by Republicans since President Trump took office. Ajit Pai, who was nominated to head the FCC by Trump in January, has said undoing the net neutrality rules was one of his top priorities, arguing that the regulation stifled innovation and was an example of government overreach."

That's a bit like saying that the Bill of Rights is a stifling batch of "regulations".
 
B.S.

It's an insulting generic ad hominem tossed out by those devoid of argument and evidence.

You know my argument is also speaking to Trump in the larger sense, but it indeed is specifically applicable here as well.

Trump associates himself with a cesspool of fraud artists and criminals.

He pulled something similar here, when he licensed his name to a failed Toronto condo project, where many lost their shirts. No different than his university.

thank you for supporting my original argument.
your link has nothing to do with what the OP posted. why cannot you not address that fact.

you then go on some red herring tangent about donald trump which is irrelevant to the discussion.

do you have anything that would support the OP or not so far you haven't posted anything to do so.
this last post is a clear sign of TDS. why? it is devoid of any and all reasonable discussion and irrelevant tangent about DT.
 
thank you for supporting my original argument.
your link has nothing to do with what the OP posted. why cannot you not address that fact.

you then go on some red herring tangent about donald trump which is irrelevant to the discussion.

do you have anything that would support the OP or not so far you haven't posted anything to do so.
this last post is a clear sign of TDS. why? it is devoid of any and all reasonable discussion and irrelevant tangent about DT.
Are you even on the right thread?

My link directly addresses the OP.
 
Back
Top Bottom