• 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!

538: The GOP Tax Cuts Are Even More Unpopular Than Past Tax Hikes

jonny5 said:
Thats 30 trillion in debt WITHOUT the tax cut. If that doesnt matter, then whats another trillion, especially it its my money back in my pocket. Dont like it, cut spending.
Click to expand...

Well of course that's the answer. And the cuts will come at the expense of poor people instead of wealthy corporations that can actually afford it.
 
Critter7r said:
Well of course that's the answer. And the cuts will come at the expense of poor people instead of wealthy corporations that can actually afford it.
Click to expand...
MAGA!

Remember about a year ago a guy ran for president claiming he was the champion of the forgotten American and he was going to protect them from Social Security and Medicare cuts and raise taxes on rich people? Whatever happened to that guy, because the guy we got doesn't have a problem with lowering taxes on rich people (83% of the cuts will eventually go to the top 1%) and paying for those cuts by shrinking benefits to those forgotten Americans.
 
Critter7r said:
Well of course that's the answer. And the cuts will come at the expense of poor people instead of wealthy corporations that can actually afford it.
Click to expand...

We can hope. Its not exactly corporate welfare that 75% of the budget. Would make sense to address actual problems instead of political conveniences.
 
MTAtech said:
MAGA!

Remember about a year ago a guy ran for president claiming he was the champion of the forgotten American and he was going to protect them from Social Security and Medicare cuts and raise taxes on rich people? Whatever happened to that guy, because the guy we got doesn't have a problem with lowering taxes on rich people (83% of the cuts will eventually go to the top 1%) and paying for those cuts by shrinking benefits to those forgotten Americans.
Click to expand...

I dont recall him promising to raise taxes on rich people. I can only find one quote where he said 'IF there is a upward revision it will be on the rich'. And nowhere has be proposed any benefit cuts. What are you sources for these positions?
 
MTAtech said:
MAGA!

Remember about a year ago a guy ran for president claiming he was the champion of the forgotten American and he was going to protect them from Social Security and Medicare cuts and raise taxes on rich people? Whatever happened to that guy, because the guy we got doesn't have a problem with lowering taxes on rich people (83% of the cuts will eventually go to the top 1%) and paying for those cuts by shrinking benefits to those forgotten Americans.
Click to expand...

Trump lied. Repeatedly. Whoda thunk it???

I remember Trump's reputation being dirt in NYC back in the early 90's.
 
jonny5 said:
I dont recall him promising to raise taxes on rich people. I can only find one quote where he said 'IF there is a upward revision it will be on the rich'. And nowhere has be proposed any benefit cuts. What are you sources for these positions?
Click to expand...

I don't remember that, either. You can replace that one with the lie saying he's be working too much to play golf.
 
jonny5 said:
We can hope. Its not exactly corporate welfare that 75% of the budget. Would make sense to address actual problems instead of political conveniences.
Click to expand...

you sure about that? You want to compare traditional welfare to corporate handouts? (We can skip SS and Medicare, we pay for it when we're young, and use it when we're old, so it's not really welfare.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxana...-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#3b3ddaa827dd

"The right has always been obsessed with moochers. But Boeing receives $13 billion in government handouts and everyone yawns, when conservatives should be grabbing their pitchforks."

https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-vs-social-welfare/

"About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent nearly 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006." (not including government contracts or tax breaks)" (Old? Maybe, but it's still telling).
 
The real estate loophole means $414billion in tax cuts for real estate investors and was added on Friday. The CorkerJr.EricIvankaTiffanyBarron45 pork.Hmm.
 
Critter7r said:
you sure about that? You want to compare traditional welfare to corporate handouts? (We can skip SS and Medicare, we pay for it when we're young, and use it when we're old, so it's not really welfare.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxana...-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#3b3ddaa827dd

"The right has always been obsessed with moochers. But Boeing receives $13 billion in government handouts and everyone yawns, when conservatives should be grabbing their pitchforks."

https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-vs-social-welfare/

"About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent nearly 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006." (not including government contracts or tax breaks)" (Old? Maybe, but it's still telling).
Click to expand...

No, I want to compare ACTUAL welfare of all kinds. That means pell grants, food stamps, health insurance subsides, medicaid, housing assistance,

https://www.budget.senate.gov/download/crs-welfare-spending-the-largest-item-in-the-federal-budget

CRS identified 83 overlapping federal welfare programs that together
represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security,
Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these 80-plus federal welfare programs
amounts to roughly $1.03 trillion. Importantly, these figures solely refer to means-tested welfare benefits.
They exclude entitlement programs to which people contribute (e.g., Social Security and Medicare).
Click to expand...

If we're going to include tax deductions as subsidies, then you can add mortgage interest, child credits, SALT etc to the individual side.
 
MTAtech said:
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/donald-trump-2016-tax-plan-214139

He’s already onboard with Ryan who vocally stated they plan to cut entitlements.
Click to expand...

From that old link:
NEW YORK — Billionaire businessman Donald Trump took to the lobby of his famed Trump Tower on Monday morning and pledged to slap himself with a huge tax hike.

"It’s going to cost me a fortune, which is actually true," the Republican presidential front-runner candidate told reporters, as he unveiled a bold — and fairly detailed — tax plan, under which half of Americans would pay no federal income tax and the rich would face closed loopholes and slashed deductions.

The audacious statement, like many of Trump's proclamations, was hard to fact check. While it's true that the plan would knock out cherished tax breaks, such as the carried interest provision dear to some Wall Street money managers, he didn't specify many of the other deductions that the super rich would no longer enjoy under a Trump presidency. And many of the lost tax breaks will be offset by a pretty sizeable overall rate reduction.
Click to expand...

Flippity-Flop, suckers...
 
jonny5 said:
There Is No Last Minute Real Estate Perk in Tax Reform
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanel...-real-estate-perk-in-tax-reform/#1c8426a314ae
Click to expand...

Sure there is. The lobbyist writing that article tries to confuse the issue with the example of the manufacturing plant owner who uses robots instead of employees. If that's what you're worried about, a sentence excluding commercial real estate (defined by asset class - 39 year property) takes care of the manufacturing plant without writing in commercial real estate into the tax break. Bottom line is the provision was intended to, and did, extend the new tax cut to real estate moguls like Trump, Kushner, Corker, et al. It's telling that defenders of the bill have to dance around that clear fact instead of trying to explain why one of the most tax advantaged activities under old law (commercial real estate) needs MORE tax breaks. That's a tough order so the propagandists don't try, preferring to divert it to a process argument (was it or not in the House bill?) or use examples off point, like this guy did with the robot stuff.

Furthermore, why write into the law a wage rule, then provide a MASSIVE trap door for the industry that wage rule will mostly affect? What is the point of the rule? To incentivize firms that HIRE PEOPLE, actual individuals and pay them wages! How does exempting commercial real estate from that rule advance the goal of tax reform? Do we need more tax incentives or else people won't invest in real estate? LMMFAO - of course that's stupid.

Rich people invest in real estate and, so, they got a tax break. That's all anyone needs to know about that last minute change.
 
Mach said:
You should familiarize yourself with needs and power, they trump voluntary every day, all day. Spouting libertarian ideals s childish, most of us move beyond that to more realistic ideologies.
Click to expand...

I see. So you have 'matured' to the level of not caring about rights or liberty. Fantastic. That puts you ont the intellectual level of a Kim Jong Un. You must be very proud.
 
JasperL said:
Which "point" was that? The position you invented for me? No, that was hackery, which is what people do when they're not creative enough to have a legitimate discussion on the merits of something. Much easier to fall back on talking points and ad hominem attacks that even the brain dead can parrot pretty faithfully with a little coaching.
Click to expand...

My point was that you lefties oppose this tax cut because you want to use the tax coed as a means of spreading wealth around to those you feel deserve it. That's not an ad hom or a 'position I invented for you' It is a fact. You just cant bring yourself to admit it. That's fine, though. No one really expects intellectual honesty from liberals anyway.
 
MTAtech said:
I did?
Click to expand...
Yes. Did you miss your own post where you saw the tax code as a means of fixing what you see as inequities in the free market? Perhaps you should read your own links
MTAtech said:
Neither Dr. Krugman nor myself acknowledge that the rich have a right to keep more of their money. We only acknowledge that the rich, and those that shill for the rich, make that their moral quest.
Click to expand...

Do you have a right to your own wealth? It would seem that you don't. So why call the cops if someone robs you of what really isn't yours by right anyway?
 
MTAtech said:
I did?
Click to expand...

MTAtech said:
MAGA!

Remember about a year ago a guy ran for president claiming he was the champion of the forgotten American and he was going to protect them from Social Security and Medicare cuts and raise taxes on rich people? Whatever happened to that guy, because the guy we got doesn't have a problem with lowering taxes on rich people (83% of the cuts will eventually go to the top 1%) and paying for those cuts by shrinking benefits to those forgotten Americans.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to those proposed cuts in social security and medicare or are you just making **** up because you are out of ideas?
 
Fletch said:
Do you have a link to those proposed cuts in social security and medicare or are you just making **** up because you are out of ideas?
Click to expand...

Ryan says Republicans to target welfare, Medicare, Medicaid spending in 2018

Despite the many promises of Donald Trump...

Donald J. Trump ‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump

I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. Huckabee copied me.

8:38 AM - 7 May 2015
Click to expand...

Donald Trump / 16 June 2015 said:
“Save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts. Have to do it. Get rid of the fraud. Get rid of the waste and abuse, but save it. People have been paying it for years. And now many of these candidates want to cut it. You save it by making the United States, by making us rich again, by taking back all of the money that’s being lost.”
Click to expand...

Donald Trump / 27 September 2015 said:
"Scott Pelley: “In your book, The America We Deserve, you proposed raising the Social Security retirement age to 70. Is that still your plan?”

Donald Trump: “Yeah, not anymore because now what I want to do is take money back from other countries that are killing us and I want to save Social Security. And we’re going to save it without increases. We’re not going to raise the age and it will be just fine.”
Click to expand...

Donald Trump / 13 February 2016 said:
“I’m going to save Social Security. You have tremendous waste, fraud and abuse. We have in Social Security thousands of people over 106 years old. You know they don’t exist. There’s tremendous waste, fraud and abuse, and we’re going to get it. But we’re not going to hurt the people who have been paying into Social Security their whole life and then all of a sudden they’re supposed to get less. We’re bringing jobs back.”
Click to expand...

Donald Trump / 10 March 2016 said:
“And it’s my absolute intention to leave Social Security the way it is. Not increase the age and to leave it as is.”
Click to expand...

Donald Trump / 4 April 2016 said:
“We’re going to save your Social Security and we’re going to save your Medicare. We are going to save it because we’re going to make our country rich again, we’re going to bring back our jobs. We’re not going to let our jobs go. And we’re going to be able to afford. You’ve been paying in it for a long time and a lot of these guys want it to be knocked to hell. It’s not going to happen, OK? Remember that. It’s not going to happen.”
Click to expand...
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Reagan numbers yield an average annual growth of 3.5% and results in a recession. Year/GDP Growth/Notes

1981 2.6% Reagan tax cut
1982 -1.9%
1983 4.6% Tax hike
1984 7.3% Increased defense spending (Star Wars)
1985 4.2%
1986 3.5% Tax cut
1987 3.5%
1988 4.2%
1989 3.7%

1990 1.9% Recession
1991 -0.1% Recession

The current GOP proposed tax cuts require economic growth of [4-5%/10 years] to pay for itself (revenue neutral).

That's simply not going to happen. unemployment is already low, corporations are already sitting on trillions, the US has a negative population curve, Trump is disrupting established US trade pacts
Click to expand...

You neglect to mention the mortgage housing crisis of 86-87, the first round of underwater mortgage foreclosures boom and bust cycles.
 
OldFatGuy said:
You neglect to mention the mortgage housing crisis of 86-87, the first round of underwater mortgage foreclosures boom and bust cycles.
Click to expand...

My omission. But it doesn't change that fact that the US has never enjoyed sustained economic growth of 4-5% for a decade except for the WWII years with its massive war materials production.

In short, the GOP is allowing the middle class a temporary tax saving of a few thousand dollars (individual/family cuts expire) with the never-mentioned downside that the revenue-shortfall-plus-interest that will be due after a decade will fall on our children and grandchildren.
 
Fletch said:
My point was that you lefties oppose this tax cut because you want to use the tax coed as a means of spreading wealth around to those you feel deserve it. That's not an ad hom or a 'position I invented for you' It is a fact. You just cant bring yourself to admit it. That's fine, though. No one really expects intellectual honesty from liberals anyway.
Click to expand...

Here was my comment when you asked me what I objected to about the GOP tax plan. You can address it if you want.

1) We're adding to deficits and providing economic boosts to businesses when after tax corporate profits are near all time records, the stock market is on a years long tear, and the labor market is tightening enough to cause the Fed to start raising rates. What problem is the tax bill supposed to solve, and what happens when we have an inevitable recession in the next few years, when we just fired both barrels of stimulus at a time of relative economic prosperity?

2) We know the answer - it's a straight up payoff to big donors, which is why it's got to be done now, instead of when the economy might appropriately need a boost, or at a minimum after a period of weeks or months that would allow for hearings and INFORMED DEBATE on some of these pretty massive changes to our tax system.

3) It's been negotiated nearly entirely in secret, with no hearings, and therefore no input from anyone other than fat cat lobbyists about the impact on....anything really. As a result, in part you are correct that it's really difficult to know enough about the law and its effects to make an informed decision about supporting it or not, and that includes everyone - including the Congress to vote in the bill. The changes will have been set in stone for about 5 minutes before they start voting. Who the hell knows what last minute garbage got put in at the end to get to 50 in the Senate? Who knows what the impact will be on multi-national corporations?

4) It creates another class of income subject to lower rates, and for no purpose I can see, and creates additional horizontal inequity that distorts economic decision making. Why should an accountant or plumber or lawyer making $100,000 face a tax increase if his sole proprietorship is acquired by a larger firm that pays him the same $100,000 in salary after the change? Why should a doctor get a tax cut by telling his employer/hospital to pay his business, Doctor LLC, instead of John Doctor the same amount in salary, which is how he's currently paid?

5) It's a huge missed opportunity. TRA 1986 did have a more or less coherent philosophy at its core which was to broaden the tax base to support lower rates. That's in principle a good thing. This "tax reform" can only reasonably said to reform our system of taxing corporations doing business abroad. The rest is a jumbled mess of crap pulled out of a hat seemingly at random to pay for that and and the big estate tax cuts for the top 0.1%, with dozens of phase-ins, phase-outs, sunsets, etc. to keep the tab under a $1.5T price tag in the first 10 years, then undo ALL those changes (in the Senate bill for individuals) to revert to current law after year 8. So they didn't even TRY to make coherent changes that could survive over time. It's just an awful piece of legislation.

6) How do the GOP plan to pay for these revenue losses? It's illegitimate IMO to look at the distribution of the tax cuts (everyone gets a cut!!) and then ignore the painful spending cuts to come and what the effect those will be on, say, the poor and old.
Click to expand...
 
Fletch said:
My point was that you lefties oppose this tax cut because you want to use the tax coed as a means of spreading wealth around to those you feel deserve it. That's not an ad hom or a 'position I invented for you' It is a fact. You just cant bring yourself to admit it. That's fine, though. No one really expects intellectual honesty from liberals anyway.
Click to expand...

Or you can address this comment which was after the first time you resorted to ad hominem attacks:

BTW for the record, I have said MANY times on here that elections have consequences and I do not object to the GOP fulfilling promises to cut taxes. It's a good thing we have opposing views in this country - they force the other side to defend their positions. Here, liberals are attempting to get right wingers to justify $1.5T in tax cuts at a time when the economy is doing fine, corporate after tax profits at all time record highs, and the GOP believes it's critical we funnel MORE profits to big corporations. Whatever. When liberals want to spend, it's a good thing that conservatives oppose them, bitterly at times, because it forces them to justify those programs AND the taxes required to pay for them. That's great, seriously.

But I also believe in HONESTY, and my point 6 in the response you didn't read was "6) How do the GOP plan to pay for these revenue losses? It's illegitimate IMO to look at the distribution of the tax cuts (everyone gets a cut!!) and then ignore the painful spending cuts to come and what the effect those will be on, say, the poor and old."

So if the GOP believe we should end the income tax, fold up government, because they don't believe in taxes, that's fine. Present that to the public, be honest about their desire to take Medicare, Medicaid, SS, disability, EBT to zero and see how it works out for them at the ballot box. Or here, be HONEST about their desire to pay for the $1.5T in tax cuts with just $150B/year in cuts to those programs, then tell us where they are going to be. That's fine too. But that would also require the GOP to be HONEST about the trade-offs. If they are HONEST about that, and still win elections, I won't like it but at least we're all working from the same set of assumptions about what the GOP want.
Click to expand...

If all you got is to make up positions and call me a liar, that's pathetic, but it's what I expect from some people on here. But I'm LMMFAO at someone who ignores multiple comments and can't do better than repeating brain dead talking points whining about someone else being intellectually dishonest. If you want to have a discussion above the level of 10 year olds, I'm good with that. If not, whatever, but don't make up **** and call me a liar. It's just SAD!
 
Rogue Valley said:
My omission. But it doesn't change that fact that the US has never enjoyed sustained economic growth of 4-5% for a decade except for the WWII years with its massive war materials production.

In short, the GOP is allowing the middle class a temporary tax saving of a few thousand dollars (individual/family cuts expire) with the never-mentioned downside that the revenue-shortfall-plus-interest that will be due after a decade will fall on our children and grandchildren.
Click to expand...

Well, there were the Jimmy Carter years when stagflation was its own growth story. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom