• 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!

Individual Tax Payers paid 93 billion more in taxes, corporations 91 billion less

ThoughtEx. said:
I wanted you to see all 86 pages.

You mean to tell me you don't read the entire document for context when researching? Just going to trust your opponent not to cherry pick?

Dude. come on.
Click to expand...
LOL, sure you do. :roll:
 
ThoughtEx. said:
/sigh

all of them, that's why they were changed. Goddam.

This was intentional. On purpose. It's not a situation where Trump and co tried to do a good thing and made a mistake.
Click to expand...

Really? You think people who spend more than $750,000 on mortgage or equity loan interest annually are part of the middle class?
 
ThoughtEx. said:
And the numbers will go up every year.

Taxpayers paid over $90 billion more under Trump tax law

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/18databk.pdf

I call this redistribution of wealth from the bottom, to the top.

Which is exactly what everyone said would happen, and what Trump supporters denied.

Remind us again, why you voted for Trump, because he was going to help the little guy...

It's a good thing you all live in a bubble of alternate reality. Really going to be hard to live this down.
Click to expand...

Not only that,

the Federal debt is at a historic high under Trump,

the Federal deficit is at a historic high under trump,

and the trade deficit is at a historic high under Trump.

No surprise there, and it's no surprise that corporations paid less taxes and individuals paid more taxes.

Under the transactional Trump, the wealthy get wealthier and all the rest fall further behind on the inequality curve.
 
Bullseye said:
Ironic a Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferer would accuse someone else of hive mentality. :cool" Particularly one using the tired old worn out "everything was great before Trump" bull****.
Click to expand...

Sorry, unlike you lot parroting the same bs arguments and the same bs soundbites I've got no groupthink going on.

You lot have been using the tired and contrived **** since the 60s.

So save your tongue lashing for someone who gives a ****.
 
Bullseye said:
Huh? Which 91 billion less in taxes? Are you equating businesses with "the rich"?
Click to expand...

well, as logically those businesses are owned by wealthy shareholders. And those share holders are the ones funding politicians to get favorable treatment for the business so their share price will increase and so forth and so on.

Yes. I am equating corporations who got the windfall with the rich.

not to be confused, which I know where you were going, with small businesses.

Are we clear? Any confusion? Do I need to draw you a ****ing picture?

What other hairs you want to split because you can't take two seconds to think about what someone means by a statement.
 
Obscurity said:
Sorry, unlike you lot parroting the same bs arguments and the same bs soundbites I've got no groupthink going on.

You lot have been using the tired and contrived **** since the 60s.

So save your tongue lashing for someone who gives a ****.
Click to expand...

Someone's triggered again... :cool:
 
Napoleon said:
Really? You think people who spend more than $750,000 on mortgage or equity loan interest annually are part of the middle class?
Click to expand...

I know you think you are making some kind of gotcha point here.

But your just trying to send the thread off on a tangent with a straw man, which if I engage as if I made that point you will come up with some bs reasoning and declare the point I actually made invalid.

So, try again, this time try harder.
 
Obscurity said:
Not triggered. Sick of you lot and your hive mind collevtist bs.
Click to expand...

How about you join in the discussion then?
Instead of poo-pooing Trump's tax cuts which have proven to stimulate job growth, you tell us how you would do it instead.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
I know you think you are making some kind of gotcha point here.

But your just trying to send the thread off on a tangent with a straw man, which if I engage as if I made that point you will come up with some bs reasoning and declare the point I actually made invalid.

So, try again, this time try harder.
Click to expand...

You claimed that the middle class experienced a tax burden increase because all of the deduction changes were targeted to do just that. I’m pointing out that your hypothesis doesn’t make sense because the deduction caps are far and above what anyone would consider middle class not to mention that the standard deduction was doubled.
 
Napoleon said:
You claimed that the middle class experienced a tax burden increase because all of the deduction changes were targeted to do just that. I’m pointing out that your hypothesis doesn’t make sense because the deduction caps are far and above what anyone would consider middle class not to mention that the standard deduction was doubled.
Click to expand...

I believe that my argument didn't make sense, to you.

But I don't see how, you think I claimed all deductions were done away with. Or how one deduction alone no matter what the cap is will benefit a middle class person who can only deduct the expense actually incurred.

Cap's 750,000, middle class person only deducts their actual expense. Doesn't benefit them. Does benefit the wealthy. which is why it's a straw man. As my premise is Trump changed it to screw the middle class and benefit the wealthy. So showing me a benefit for the wealthy, and asking how it affects a middle class person is just never going to work.

Again, a high deduction cap on a single deduction doesn't mean a middle class person can deduct the whole cap.

Yeah the standard was doubled. And so many others taken away it didn't matter.

There, I have gone against my better judgement and engaged your straw man. Knowing it's a strawman.

I do not have high hopes this clears up your "confusion"
 
ThoughtEx. said:
I believe that my argument didn't make sense, to you.

But I don't see how, you think I claimed all deductions were done away with. Or how one deduction alone no matter what the cap is will benefit a middle class person who can only deduct the expense actually incurred.

Cap's 750,000, middle class person only deducts their actual expense. Doesn't benefit them. Does benefit the wealthy. which is why it's a straw man. As my premise is Trump changed it to screw the middle class and benefit the wealthy. So showing me a benefit for the wealthy, and asking how it affects a middle class person is just never going to work.

Again, a high deduction cap on a single deduction doesn't mean a middle class person can deduct the whole cap.

Yeah the standard was doubled. And so many others taken away it didn't matter.

There, I have gone against my better judgement and engaged your straw man. Knowing it's a strawman.

I do not have high hopes this clears up your "confusion"
Click to expand...

We’re talking about your claim that all of the deduction changes harmed the middle class by increasing their tax burden. It isn’t a strawman to point out that none of the deduction caps would have done that because the caps are still way above what anyone would consider a middle class expense. Capping deductible mortgage and equity loan interest at $750,000 each did not result in an increased tax burden on the middle class.
 
Napoleon said:
We’re talking about your claim that all of the deduction changes harmed the middle class by increasing their tax burden. It isn’t a strawman to point out that none of the deduction caps would have done that because the caps are still way above what anyone would consider a middle class expense.
Click to expand...

here's what happened, you asked a question with a hidden agenda. By wording it specifically to say, which deductions were changed to this or something.

I responded with all of them, after a sigh, as in I was exasperated with the hidden gotcha aspect of the question. I responded that way, because I was responding to the question as if you didn't have the hidden agenda. As in, which deductions were changed around to hurt the middle class and benefit the rich.

I even pointed out, you think you have some sort of gotcha thing here.

So your confusion stems from really wanting that gotcha to work, after it failed.
 
Moderate Right said:
Absolutely unproven drivel and you know it. As Shiek pointed out, the IRS processed 1.5% more returns than the previous year because MORE PEOPLE WERE WORKING and more people were working because the tax cuts stimulated businesses to hire more people. And they were good jobs because 48% of the poorest don't even pay federal income taxes.
Click to expand...

Giving the rich massive, borrowed tax cuts does not produce enough stimulation to pay for the damage it does. A 1.5% increase in the employed does not sound like a good reason to increase deficits by 100%. It would be cheaper and better for the country if we hired that 1.5% of people to spend their days digging holes and filling them in again or, better yet, pay them to shout "bull ****!" every time a conservative spouts off like they understand economics.
 
Moderate Right said:
That's because more people are working because when the rich got tax cuts they hired more people!
Click to expand...

LOL Yes there is nothing like having more money to make people hire more employees out of charity.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
well, as logically those businesses are owned by wealthy shareholders. And those share holders are the ones funding politicians to get favorable treatment for the business so their share price will increase and so forth and so on.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. Those shareholders include millions who have retirement accounts or invest in mutual funds or directly in stocks - that amounts to somewhere near 50% of all US households.
ThoughtEx said:
Yes. I am equating corporations who got the windfall with the rich.
Click to expand...
Well, investing in stocks may have helped them some get rich, but there isn't a one for one relationship.
ThoughtEx said:
not to be confused, which I know where you were going, with small businesses.
Click to expand...
All businesses start out small.
ThoughtEx said:
Are we clear? Any confusion? Do I need to draw you a ****ing picture?

What other hairs you want to split because you can't take two seconds to think about what someone means by a statement.
Click to expand...
LOL, sorry facts and truth gets you so upset.
 
Obscurity said:
Sorry, unlike you lot parroting the same bs arguments and the same bs soundbites I've got no groupthink going on.

You lot have been using the tired and contrived **** since the 60s.

So save your tongue lashing for someone who gives a ****.
Click to expand...
Ironically, it's you doing the parroting; your bluster and buffoonery demonstrate that.
 
Bullseye said:
Actually, no. Those shareholders include millions who have retirement accounts or invest in mutual funds or directly in stocks - that amounts to somewhere near 50% of all US households.
Well, investing in stocks may have helped them some get rich, but there isn't a one for one relationship.
All businesses start out small.
LOL, sorry facts and truth gets you so upset.
Click to expand...


What Percent Of Americans Own Stocks? - Financial Samurai

I don't know where you get your info. I don't want to know.

But you're talking to a financial advisor, out of your ass, about how how Americans are invested and to what degree.
So I'm dismissing you, respond , cry, bitch, moan, whatever. I'm not going to sit here and explain to you our entire economic system, there are colleges for that.

Buh bye.
 
Obscurity said:
Your conservative lies noted, repeated, and dismissed for the smug, smarmy bull**** they are.
Click to expand...

Your liberal lies noted, repeated, and dismissed for the smug, smarmy bull**** they are.
 
D_NATURED said:
Giving the rich massive, borrowed tax cuts does not produce enough stimulation to pay for the damage it does. A 1.5% increase in the employed does not sound like a good reason to increase deficits by 100%. It would be cheaper and better for the country if we hired that 1.5% of people to spend their days digging holes and filling them in again or, better yet, pay them to shout "bull ****!" every time a conservative spouts off like they understand economics.
Click to expand...

What damage does it do? The tax cuts helped just about everyone but the left again want to complain because Billy got more than Johnnie. You certainly can't be referring to the national debt. Democrats don't care about the national debt. Now you can make the argument that Republicans don't care about the national debt but you can't make the argument that Democrats do so that has nothing to do with this.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL Yes there is nothing like having more money to make people hire more employees out of charity.
Click to expand...

What? Stay out too late last night? Now you're complaining because the tax cuts gave the rich more money so they hired more people?
 
Moderate Right said:
What? Stay out too late last night? Now you're complaining because the tax cuts gave the rich more money so they hired more people?
Click to expand...

What you are saying is an oxymoron. Employers hire people to MAKE money not spend it.
 
Bullseye said:
Ironically, it's you doing the parroting; your bluster and buffoonery demonstrate that.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You lot throw out the exact same steaming hot trash post after post after post. debating one of you is debating all of you.

Your ideology is a false construct by the rich perfectly camouflaged to appeal to your patriotic side.

You are a cog.
 
trixare4kids said:
How about you join in the discussion then?
Instead of poo-pooing Trump's tax cuts which have proven to stimulate job growth, you tell us how you would do it instead.
Click to expand...


Raise taxes on the top earners. Eliminate tax deductions for individuals making over 250k a year. Speculative tax of 2 cents on the dollar. Tax wire transfers from non citizens to foreign nations at 5%. Value added tax on the biggest tech companies of 12% or more. Cut all trump's tax breaks for the wealthy and immediately reduce tax burden for the lower income brackets in double digits. Most likely 15%. I can go on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom