• 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!

Will the Trump/GOP tax bill help or hurt Trump and the GOP?

Yes they are. But does that mean that every single one of them want lower taxes? Perhaps you should read up on Warren Buffet's comments sometime, about how wrong it is for him to get taxed at a lower rate than his secretary.

You have virtually no clue about business. The very huge majority of businesses are small businesses. Warren Buffet doesn't represent small business. He can afford to pay more taxes. The backbone of America, small businesses, want lower taxes and can't pay higher ones.
 
The tax bill - if passed in its current condition - will be one of the reasons 2018 is a wave election and will help provide ammunition not just against Trump - but against Republican candidates and office holders from coast to coast. It will be an albatross around the neck of the party and a weight which helps take them down.

If the GOP was smart, they would recognize the canaries in the coal mines the recent elections are. They would lower the corporate tax rate perhaps 25 or so and then give all the other money in tax cuts to the middle class making between 50 and 125 K per year. Now that might help them with actual voters.

But they will not do that as this is about paying off their donor class. And they will serve their masters like good trained dogs and deliver as promised to the rich.

LOL. All it will do is fire up the far left who are anti-business and wouldn't vote Republican anyway. Meanwhile almost everyone will be better off than they were four years ago, including those who are jealous of the rich.
 
Yes they are. But does that mean that every single one of them want lower taxes? Perhaps you should read up on Warren Buffet's comments sometime, about how wrong it is for him to get taxed at a lower rate than his secretary.

Let's compare the dollar amounts of what Buffet pays in taxes to what his secretary pays in taxes.
 
I think it will hurt the GOP. The polls show it isn't popular, and whatever effects may come out of it won't manifest themselves in time for the 2018 midterms.

The polls don't tell the whole picture. Democrats use that poll figure as proof of their stance against the tax bill. But, Democrat's main gripe is not about the tax plan adding to the debt but that the rich are getting much more in tax breaks than the poorer do. Many on the right are against the tax plan because it adds to the debt, not because Mr. Smith gets a bigger tax cut than average Joe or Jane Smith. If the tax bill were revenue neutral, the very same number of Democrats would be against it whereas the huge majority of the right would be for it. Also, if a few Democrats had joined Republicans in drafting the tax bill, we could have made the individual cuts permanent instead of expiring in ten years. Republicans were forced to make the individual rates expire in ten years due to the budget reconciliation process because all Democrats were taking part in the resistance due to their shear jealousy of the rich getting more than the poorer. It's Democrat's fault that the individual rates expire in ten years.
 
Do you actually know anything about what kind of economic problems Obama got when he became president and how he brought us out of the deepest recession since the depression. And part of the cause for that recession was the tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush. Most economists will tell you the economy is still growing under those things that Obama put into place as Trump has done nothing to actually help the economy. And the Trump/GOP tax cut will do nothing but make the rich richer, increase the deficit and part of all of that will be paid for by the tax increases on the Middle class and the poor. In the end, several years down the road that will all lead to another deep recession.

Obama didn't need 8 years to get us out of the recession.
 
With the Alabama election, taxes seems to have fallen off the radar, so I've attached a video that does a good job in explaining the Kansas experiment, which is essentially what the Republican federal tax bill emulates.



Kansas is not the United States. They are two different animals. Just ask California, who claims that they cannot innact single payer healthcare on their own, it has to be done through the federal government.
 
LOL. All it will do is fire up the far left who are anti-business and wouldn't vote Republican anyway. Meanwhile almost everyone will be better off than they were four years ago, including those who are jealous of the rich.

Do you have any actual data to present which supports these claims about "almost everyone will be better off than they were four years ago"?
 
Do you have any actual data to present which supports these claims about "almost everyone will be better off than they were four years ago"?

Oh please. The information has been released by numerous news organizations. It's easily available. Democrats want to talk about what happens in 10 years. How about talking about what happens the first 10 years, where almost everyone will be better off, tax wise?
 
Oh please. The information has been released by numerous news organizations. It's easily available. Democrats want to talk about what happens in 10 years. How about talking about what happens the first 10 years, where almost everyone will be better off, tax wise?

If its easy to find - then by all means present it. After all, it was YOU who made the claim and it YOU who must support it when challenged.
 
If its easy to find - then by all means present it. After all, it was YOU who made the claim and it YOU who must support it when challenged.

That's ridiculous. The items on the bill are well known everywhere. If you are that uninformed that you are a waste of my time. Maybe you can prove that most people will not be helped in the first ten years. Do you have that proof?
 
The biggest problem with the proposed tax bill is that it addresses the wrong thing.

We don't need tax reform: we need SPENDING reform. A tax cut without a corresponding spending cut accomplishes nothing. Remember that every dime the government spends comes out of our pockets, one way or another. All that debt that the government piles up is not "free".

If you plot government spending on a graph, it is an upward-curving line that continues to get steeper and steeper. And there's no end in sight.
 
That's ridiculous. The items on the bill are well known everywhere. If you are that uninformed that you are a waste of my time. Maybe you can prove that most people will not be helped in the first ten years. Do you have that proof?

So show us how all this well known information will save most people money and they will be better off.

YOU CANNOT DO IT.
 
So show us how all this well known information will save most people money and they will be better off.

YOU CANNOT DO IT.

All you have to do is look at the headlines of the day and click on it and read it. The truth is, you cannot prove that the Republican plan doesn't help just about everyone in the first ten years.
 
All you have to do is look at the headlines of the day and click on it and read it. The truth is, you cannot prove that the Republican plan doesn't help just about everyone in the first ten years.

As expected , you are still impotent to present anything to support your claim. You have a lot to learn about debate - as most of it is supporting your claims - not merely stating them and telling the other party to do your work for you.
 
As expected , you are still impotent to present anything to support your claim. You have a lot to learn about debate - as most of it is supporting your claims - not merely stating them and telling the other party to do your work for you.

I can't debate someone who can't even read the headlines that appear every day. If you are that uninformed then you are impossible to debate with.
 
I can't debate someone who can't even read the headlines that appear every day. If you are that uninformed then you are impossible to debate with.

And still you have offered no verifiable evidence for your claim.
 
Trump is trying to fix that by lowering her taxes

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Problem is, he didn't lower her taxes nearly as much as he lowered Warren Buffet's - especially since much of Warren Buffet's wealth is in his corporations and stocks...meaning he'll essentially be getting the corporate rate instead of the individual rate paid by the secretary.

What's more, in 2025 her taxes will go back up...whereas the corporate tax rate that applies to most of Buffet's wealth is permanent.

So...no, Trump didn't fix that problem. What's more, he wasn't even a part of the discussion. All he was doing was pushing his Republicans in Congress to get it done. He knows next to nothing of the details, just as he knew next to nothing about the details of the Obamacare-repeal bills...or do you not remember how he claimed that health care insurance only cost $12/month?
 
Hillary would have raised the minimum wage up to $12 per hour, which would have caused a recession.

Um, no, raising the minimum wage has never been shown to "cause a recession" - that's just a talking point fed to you day in and day out by Fox and Friends. If your claim really were the case, then there would be widespread recession throughout the first-world democracies. The minimum wages in Canada and Australia are both higher than ours...but their economies are quite healthy.

Got a story for you. I spend a lot of time in the Philippines...and in Manila, the minimum wage is about $8 per day (after conversion from the Philippine Piso). Thing is, it's not unusual for the workers to not be paid anything close to that minimum wage - the government's not strong enough to reliably enforce it, and those who would investigate it are easily bribed (since they themselves are not paid well). This means that there's no effective minimum wage there. What happens as a result is that competing businesses fight like hell to give the best price...and when Business A has cut its operating expenses to the bone to keep up with Business B's market share, Business B is forced to similarly cut its operating expenses...and sooner or later, guess what part of operating expenses get cut? That's right - the pay of the workers. And the workers know that their choice is either to complain (which gets them fired very quickly with no legal recourse) or to just suck it up and keep working...for this essentially means that the people have a choice of getting paid next to nothing...or embarking on a life of crime.

What a minimum wage does is to prevent the businesses from cutting wages below a certain point...because businesses - if allowed to do so - WILL cut the wages as deeply as they can get away with. Yeah, the law of supply and demand does work for highly-skilled workers, but the vast majority do not have those college-degree skills...and so they get screwed hard if there's no minimum wage. But with a respectable minimum wage - such as is found in Canada and Australia - one isn't left with being one accident or one sick month away from homelessness.
 
Ummmmmmmmmmm. Economic growth has doubled under Trump.

Ummmm...NO, economic growth has NOT "doubled" under Trump. The economy has improved somewhat...but at no greater pace than it was improving for several years under Obama.

Better yet, here's a detailed comparison of Trump's economic performance as compared to Obama's...

...and considering the economic s**t sandwich that Obama inherited on day one of his presidency AND the fact that he faced the worst degree of political obstruction faced by any president since Lincoln, Obama's economic accomplishments are all the more impressive. Trump, on the other hand, inherited an economy that was MUCH improved from when Obama first took over. Just as with everything else, Trump took over halfway between third base and home plate and thought he hit a home run.
 
You have virtually no clue about business. The very huge majority of businesses are small businesses. Warren Buffet doesn't represent small business. He can afford to pay more taxes. The backbone of America, small businesses, want lower taxes and can't pay higher ones.

I've been a small business owner...so it would do you well to not assume what I do and don't know. So are you really going to claim that Warren Buffet knows less about small businesses than you do? Perhaps you should read up on his early life to see how many small businesses he built and bought and operated over the years. He really is the archetype of the "self-made man" - as are Obama and Bill Clinton, come to think of it. None of them were born into ultra-rich money like Trump and the Bushes were. One would think that real conservatives would have more respect for "self-made men" than for those who were born into money...but then, today's GOP really isn't conservative anymore, is it?
 
Let's compare the dollar amounts of what Buffet pays in taxes to what his secretary pays in taxes.

Really? By the logic you're implying, it would be okay for Trump to pay 1% taxes even if I paid 99% taxes, all because Trump pays a higher dollar amount! Is that really what you're trying to say?
 
I've been a small business owner...so it would do you well to not assume what I do and don't know. So are you really going to claim that Warren Buffet knows less about small businesses than you do? Perhaps you should read up on his early life to see how many small businesses he built and bought and operated over the years. He really is the archetype of the "self-made man" - as are Obama and Bill Clinton, come to think of it. None of them were born into ultra-rich money like Trump and the Bushes were. One would think that real conservatives would have more respect for "self-made men" than for those who were born into money...but then, today's GOP really isn't conservative anymore, is it?

Not born onto money, but once they had some they sure loved it, too much.....these are not men who suffered much if at all once they reached the age of majority, after they got their nobs polished at University....your so-called self made men.....
 
Not born onto money, but once they had some they sure loved it, too much.....these are not men who suffered much if at all once they reached the age of majority, after they got their nobs polished at University....your so-called self made men.....

You can't help but find a reason to hate those you want to hate, huh?
 
The tax bill is great mistake for the country but also for Trump and his legacy. Had he kept his mouth in check and followed through on the one campaign promise he knew something about, focusing the country on modernizing its infrastructure, he might have become an importantly good President, but with passage of the tax bill that opportunity will be gone.
 
Problem is, he didn't lower her taxes nearly as much as he lowered Warren Buffet's - especially since much of Warren Buffet's wealth is in his corporations and stocks...meaning he'll essentially be getting the corporate rate instead of the individual rate paid by the secretary.

What's more, in 2025 her taxes will go back up...whereas the corporate tax rate that applies to most of Buffet's wealth is permanent.

So...no, Trump didn't fix that problem. What's more, he wasn't even a part of the discussion. All he was doing was pushing his Republicans in Congress to get it done. He knows next to nothing of the details, just as he knew next to nothing about the details of the Obamacare-repeal bills...or do you not remember how he claimed that health care insurance only cost $12/month?
What your saying here is mostly true and my response to that is because the system itself is flawed. The reason buffet pays less than his secretary is because we tax income. The income she is being taxed on is for her labor. She is being taxed on money that she has never been taxed on before. Buffet is paying taxes on income being generated by money that he has already paid taxes on. That is why he pays less than her. Is that fair, I don't know. That's a matter of opinion. Would it be fair to tax smaller investors for using their taxed money to grow their nest eggs, not sure about that.

My position is this, scrap the entire system and switch to a national sales tax. That eliminates all tax loopholes and everyone pays their share. It would also eliminate the need for 90% of the irs and all the tax lawyers and CPAS associated with filling out your taxes correctly. This system seems to work just fine in states like Florida and Texas and it would work just fine nationally, imo.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom