• 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

Critter7r said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I hear this "reason" (^^^^) for taxing investment income at a lower rate all the time and it just doesn't add up for me.

Let's say I earn $1000, and pay taxes on it and bring home say - after taxes ... Fed, FICA and Medicare - $700 working at the 7-11 and I take that (already taxed) income and "invest" in some Apple stock. Eighteen months later that stock has tripled and I sell it for $2,100. Is it really fair to tax the $1,400 I "earned" by selling my Apple stock at only 15% (or maybe even zero for someone actually working at a 7-11) just because I "invested" my original $750 in after-tax funds? And, I don't have to pay FICA or Medicare tax on that $1,400? Sign me up!! I mean, it really is a sweet deal.

If I gross $1,000 working at a job, I bring home about $700. If I gross it in the stock market, I get to keep $850 (or all of it if I'm in the 15% bracket!).
Click to expand...

There you go - invest away!
 
MTAtech said:
Your line of reasoning was that how can people polled have an opinion if they didn't read the [500 page] bill? I said that I had not read it either but read the analysis of the various experts that did read it. The unanimous conclusion was that this tax bill lowers taxes on the rich and corporations; lowers them temporarily for the middle class [in hopes that they'll not realize they get screwed in the long run and vote GOP in 2018], raises taxes for ~65% of the middle class by 2027; adds an additional $1 trillion at a minimum to the debt and has only minimal, at best, economic benefit.

I am outraged at all of that. The rich should be paying higher than 39.9% as a top rate and capital gains taxes should be also higher. An argument can be made for lowering middle class taxes but leaving them alone isn't bad either. Corporations don't need a tax cut when they are sitting on trillions in savings in banks.
Click to expand...

You are outraged that some people may not be paying as much as you want them to. Why don't you worry about yourself rather than seek unearned wealth from others.
 
JasperL said:
That's a dumb standard not applied to really ANYTHING else.

When was the last time you read the Internal Revenue Code and all the associated Regulations? How about the body of case law that is an integral part of our tax system, with many core principles of income taxation only appearing in cases? Never you say? Well, then using your own standard you cannot have any valid opinion on the existing tax code or the changes to it, so why are you in a thread about income tax at all when you are by your own definition "barely less ignorant" than a 12 year old who has never paid taxes and doesn't even know what an 'income tax' is?

Etc.... :roll:

As to your 2nd point:

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...

You seem to be suffering from the same envy sickness as MATech. Both you two are interested in taxation only as a means of transferring wealth.
 
Fletch said:
You seem to be suffering from the same envy sickness as MATech. Both you two are interested in taxation only as a means of transferring wealth.
Click to expand...

LOL, why not just say you asked a question and didn't care what the response was? You sure didn't read my objections, unless reading comprehension is a big problem for you. :roll:
 
JasperL said:
LOL, why not just say you asked a question and didn't care what the response was? You sure didn't read my objections, unless reading comprehension is a big problem for you. :roll:
Click to expand...

Not sure why you guys go to such lengths to hide your true motives. You oppose ANY effort to reduce taxes on those who pay them because you want to use the tax code as a means of transferring wealth from those who have it to those who you think should have it. That you waste your time typing out lengthy posts in an effort to hide that fact isn't my problem, its yours.
 
Fletch said:
Not sure why you guys go to such lengths to hide your true motives. You oppose ANY effort to reduce taxes on those who pay them because you want to use the tax code as a means of transferring wealth from those who have it to those who you think should have it. That you waste your time typing out lengthy posts in an effort to hide that fact isn't my problem, its yours.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand the tax code or any of the issues, it's OK to just admit it. No need to try to hide ignorance behind ad hominem attacs.... :roll:
 
Fletch said:
Not sure why you guys go to such lengths to hide your true motives. You oppose ANY effort to reduce taxes on those who pay them because you want to use the tax code as a means of transferring wealth from those who have it to those who you think should have it. That you waste your time typing out lengthy posts in an effort to hide that fact isn't my problem, its yours.
Click to expand...

You are aware that it will increase the deficit by 1.5 trillion, or more if this rushed job left too many loopholes...which it appears ti may have.
Who will pay for that? Dems, who will win the next presidential election, will have to come in and raise taxes to get the defecit under control, and you'll say Dems love raising taxes.

It's old news. I think it's miscalculation though...the stink of Trump will not be so easy to wash off.
 
Fletch said:
You seem to be suffering from the same envy sickness as MATech. Both you two are interested in taxation only as a means of transferring wealth.
Click to expand...

Funny, because transferring wealth is exactly what this bill does. It transfers it upward therefore removing it from the economy.

Wealth is like water it needs to stay in circulation or it becomes stagnant.
 
Mach said:
You are aware that it will increase the deficit by 1.5 trillion, or more if this rushed job left too many loopholes...which it appears ti may have.
Who will pay for that? Dems, who will win the next presidential election, will have to come in and raise taxes to get the defecit under control, and you'll say Dems love raising taxes.

It's old news. I think it's miscalculation though...the stink of Trump will not be so easy to wash off.
Click to expand...

Nobody, thus we now have a $20T (and growing) national debt. Both the party for a bigger federal government and the party for a huge federal government have been willing to spend more than they will dare demand in direct taxation. Most folks (who vote) would rather have their (theoretical) share of additional debt increased than have their (very real) paychecks decreased to reduce that (theoretical) burden - thus, no mater which party is temporarily "in charge", our representatives (currently enjoying a re-election rate of over 90%) will continue to spend more than they are willing to tax.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Most folks (who vote) would rather have their (theoretical) share of additional debt increased than have their (very real) paychecks decreased to reduce that (theoretical) burden
Click to expand...

Then why is the approval of the GOP tax plan hovering at around 30%?
Trump's approval at around 30%?
Hell, "most" folks didn't even vote for Trump, and I guarantee of those that did, many had no idea he would come so far off the rails.

No, it's always the case that Republicans will **** it up for a buck, and the Dems will be the bad parent and have to come back with tough love.
Worst part being the Republicans have lied about being deficit hawks all this time and apparently don't feel their voters will make them pay a price. Dems are happy to have them pay the price...why are R's a rubber stamp?
 
Mach said:
Then why is the approval of the GOP tax plan hovering at around 30%?
Trump's approval at around 30%?
Hell, "most" folks didn't even vote for Trump, and I guarantee of those that did, many had no idea he would come so far off the rails.

No, it's always the case that Republicans will **** it up for a buck, and the Dems will be the bad parent and have to come back with tough love.
Worst part being the Republicans have lied about being deficit hawks all this time and apparently don't feel their voters will make them pay a price. Dems are happy to have them pay the price...why are R's a rubber stamp?
Click to expand...

Nice rant but that does not explain the "approval" for a $20T (and rising) national debt. It is not as if, without this latest tax law change, we were on the verge of a balanced budget much less any surplus to reduce the national debt. I agree that republicants lie, just as the demorats do, about bringing federal spending down or federal taxation up to balance the federal budget.
 
Fletch said:
You are outraged that some people may not be paying as much as you want them to. Why don't you worry about yourself rather than seek unearned wealth from others.
Click to expand...
What an absurd post which leaves me thinking that you want to argue for lower taxes on the rich on rational grounds but can't, so, you devolve the argument into 'mind our own business.' I guess I shouldn't be also worried about whether the government is wiretapping my neighbor, as long as they don't wiretap me.

In the real word, macro policies affect everyone. Lower taxes on the rich means that there is less government revenue, that either must be raised on everyone else or necessary programs must be cut or we tag it onto the debt.

Personally, I am morally outraged that a once great political party is advocating lowering taxes on the rich and adding the cost onto the national debt -- but King Fletch says that I can't talk about it.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Nice rant but that does not explain the "approval" for a $20T (and rising) national debt. It is not as if, without this latest tax law change, we were on the verge of a balanced budget much less any surplus to reduce the national debt. I agree that republicants lie, just as the demorats do, about bringing federal spending down or federal taxation up to balance the federal budget.
Click to expand...

Most people did not pass the GOP tax plan, as you claimed.
The Republican House and Senate did, despite the lack of popularity I evidenced.

It will increase the deficit when it's at an all time high, at a time the economy is already doing well. It contradicts what the GOP has been saying for years:

https://www.gop.com/topic/budget-and-spending-budget-and-deficit-spending/canonical/

President Obama has added more to the national debt than any other president in American history and we must fix his mistakes. Republicans believe that significant structural reforms, increased productivity, use of technology, and a smaller government are essential in balancing America’s budget. Republicans promote a transparent budget process where Congress is held responsible for its actions.
Click to expand...

Where have Dems lied about this in such a big way, on their front page, and through major legislation? I'm really curious.
 
Fletch said:
Not sure why you guys go to such lengths to hide your true motives. You oppose ANY effort to reduce taxes on those who pay them because you want to use the tax code as a means of transferring wealth from those who have it to those who you think should have it. That you waste your time typing out lengthy posts in an effort to hide that fact isn't my problem, its yours.
Click to expand...

Then advocate for some f'ing spending cuts instead of continually harping on this non-existent issue of "taxation as wealth transfer". That all ANY taxation is. But it's transferring wealth from the people to the government to spend on government things. Some of those things involve giving money to the country's less-than-wealthy citizens, but mostly it's for keeping poor, old, and poor old people from destitution and dying in the streets, and playing police around the world.

You're not looking to generate any ideas, or solve any problems, you just want to argue.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
From what I've read, the bill has only gotten more skewed towards the rich. So, call this a conservative estimate.
Click to expand...

Not really you should stop reading liberal blogs.
The better questions is why do you hate people that are more successful than you.

Your angst towards people that have worked their rear end off to be wealthy is not healthy.
You should stop being jealous of other people's accomplishments.
 
Critter7r said:
Then advocate for some f'ing spending cuts instead of continually harping on this non-existent issue of "taxation as wealth transfer". That all ANY taxation is. But it's transferring wealth from the people to the government to spend on government things. Some of those things involve giving money to the country's less-than-wealthy citizens, but mostly it's for keeping poor, old, and poor old people from destitution and dying in the streets, and playing police around the world.

You're not looking to generate any ideas, or solve any problems, you just want to argue.
Click to expand...

The issue is that the government is there to help people. Help people not make them dependent slaves.
There is a difference between the two of them. Our social programs do not exist to help people but keep them trapped on the government dime.

If they were truest meant to help people than job programs, job skills, and other such programs would be mandatory. We will help you become self sufficient not dependent on government.

Then here is always the percentage of the population that will refuse to do it as eye feel it is owed them.

As have been posted before he bottom 10% in the US Live just as good or better than the top 10% elsewhere in other developed nations. Wealth transfer has never worked in any society.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...an-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/#7997c34954ef
 
JasperL said:
Thanks for the link, but those numbers are so far off from every other analysis that they look suspect to me. I don't see how a person making $50,000 can save $2,500 in taxes, which is what that link estimates. Under current law they'll owe little to nothing, and the bills under other analyses such as this one: https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/trump-tax-reform-calculator?skn=#results and this one: https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/trump-tax-reform-calculator?skn=#results show that under the bills, someone making $50,000 owes $0.
Click to expand...

Those numbers are based on the new bill. You links are based on outdated bad bills and bad information.
That is the difference. Something that has been pointed out numerous times.
 
ludin said:
The issue is that the government is there to help people. Help people not make them dependent slaves.
There is a difference between the two of them. Our social programs do not exist to help people but keep them trapped on the government dime.

If they were truest meant to help people than job programs, job skills, and other such programs would be mandatory. We will help you become self sufficient not dependent on government.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine the outrage if the gov't were to outright pay for poor people's jobs skills programs? The right would be clamoring that it was the slippery slope on the way to "higher education for all".

Then here is always the percentage of the population that will refuse to do it as they feel it is owed them.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant and miniscule portion of the working poor.

As have been posted before he bottom 10% in the US Live just as good or better than the top 10% elsewhere in other developed nations. Wealth transfer has never worked in any society.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...an-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/#7997c34954ef
Click to expand...

Right, but we really don't (and shouldn't) give a **** how much better we are than some 3rd-world country's citizens. You don't drive by the panhandler on the street and think, "MAN!! I live WAY better than that guy!! I should just rest on my laurels because I. HAVE. IT. MADE!!" No, you compare yourself to your peers. Not that we shouldn't be thankful that we won the birth location lottery, but comparing ourselves to them isn't really going to improve us.
 
Critter7r said:
Can you imagine the outrage if the gov't were to outright pay for poor people's jobs skills programs? The right would be clamoring that it was the slippery slope on the way to "higher education for all".
Click to expand...
Your hyperbole is just that. The same hyperbole that the left threw when welfare reform was passed. Guess what people went out and got jobs.


Irrelevant and miniscule portion of the working poor.
Click to expand...

There is still a percentage that cannot be ignored.

Right, but we really don't (and shouldn't) give a **** how much better we are than some 3rd-world country's citizens. You don't drive by the panhandler on the street and think, "MAN!! I live WAY better than that guy!! I should just rest on my laurels because I. HAVE. IT. MADE!!" No, you compare yourself to your peers. Not that we shouldn't be thankful that we won the birth location lottery, but comparing ourselves to them isn't really going to improve us.
Click to expand...

Most of the countries on that list are not third world they are developed nations.
More hyperbole instead of addressing anything.

Why is it liberals do that?

Facts are facts. Sorry you don't like them.
 
Mach said:
Then why is the approval of the GOP tax plan hovering at around 30%?
Trump's approval at around 30%?
Hell, "most" folks didn't even vote for Trump, and I guarantee of those that did, many had no idea he would come so far off the rails.

No, it's always the case that Republicans will **** it up for a buck, and the Dems will be the bad parent and have to come back with tough love.
Worst part being the Republicans have lied about being deficit hawks all this time and apparently don't feel their voters will make them pay a price. Dems are happy to have them pay the price...why are R's a rubber stamp?
Click to expand...

Absolutely! This tax plan is being shoved down the throats of hard-working Americans by billionaires. Write your Congressman and Senators, and tell them that if they vote for this, they will lose your vote.
 
JasperL said:
If you don't understand the tax code or any of the issues, it's OK to just admit it. No need to try to hide ignorance behind ad hominem attacs.... :roll:
Click to expand...

Its not an ad hom to accurately describe your objection to tax cuts. Perhaps if might lay out your honest objections rather than those meant to obscure them, a quality discussion might happen.
 
Mach said:
You are aware that it will increase the deficit by 1.5 trillion, or more if this rushed job left too many loopholes...which it appears ti may have.
Who will pay for that? Dems, who will win the next presidential election, will have to come in and raise taxes to get the defecit under control, and you'll say Dems love raising taxes.

It's old news. I think it's miscalculation though...the stink of Trump will not be so easy to wash off.
Click to expand...

1.5 trillion over 10 years. That's 150 billion per year. You weren't outraged over Obamas deficits, but now that a republican is in office, deficits are suddenly important. The deficit in Obamas final year was $666 billion. Did that bother you? Of course not. But somehow that deficit being raised to $800 billion is suddenly cause for alarm. Sorry, but it is hard to take that sort of hackery seriously.
 
GDViking said:
Funny, because transferring wealth is exactly what this bill does. It transfers it upward therefore removing it from the economy.

Wealth is like water it needs to stay in circulation or it becomes stagnant.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but allowing people to keep more of their own money is not a wealth transfer.
 
MTAtech said:
What an absurd post which leaves me thinking that you want to argue for lower taxes on the rich on rational grounds but can't, so, you devolve the argument into 'mind our own business.' I guess I shouldn't be also worried about whether the government is wiretapping my neighbor, as long as they don't wiretap me.

In the real word, macro policies affect everyone. Lower taxes on the rich means that there is less government revenue, that either must be raised on everyone else or necessary programs must be cut or we tag it onto the debt.

Personally, I am morally outraged that a once great political party is advocating lowering taxes on the rich and adding the cost onto the national debt -- but King Fletch says that I can't talk about it.
Click to expand...
In short, you are outraged that you don't get confiscate as much wealth from others for your own purposes. So we agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom