6 months in, GOP tax bill an utter flop

Fletch said:

That would be significant if it happened, but they dont seem to be proposing actual 'cuts' but supposed 'savings' that would appear by restructuring the programs. The "republicans want to slash SS and Medicare" is nothing more than dishonest leftist rhetoric the dems roll out every election year.

Click to expand...

"savings" is a euphemism for cuts, the house gop proposal do want to cut social programs, you admitted to wanting less fed taxation in this context.

Gimmesometruth said:

"savings" is a euphemism for cuts, the house gop proposal do want to cut social programs, you admitted to wanting less fed taxation in this context.

Click to expand...

No, I actually think there should be higher taxes for Medicare/Medicaid and SS. If people want those programs and they are underfunded, then fund them--raise the withholding. Medical costs have skyrocketed yet withholding for Medicare/Medicaid hasnt budged in years, maybe even decades.

Fletch said:

No, I actually think there should be higher taxes for Medicare/Medicaid and SS. If people want those programs and they are underfunded, then fund them--raise the withholding. Medical costs have skyrocketed yet withholding for Medicare/Medicaid hasnt budged in years, maybe even decades.

Click to expand...

dodge, we are not debating your proposal, your analysis.

the fact is this, teh goper proposal is the ryan plan with new drapes.

Fletch said:

That would be significant if it happened, but they dont seem to be proposing actual 'cuts' but supposed 'savings' that would appear by restructuring the programs. The "republicans want to slash SS and Medicare" is nothing more than dishonest leftist rhetoric the dems roll out every election year.

Click to expand...

The secret sauce to the cuts, er "savings," in these programs is to pay for less care for fewer people (you could also pay lower prices for the care you do buy, but privatizing public insurance programs pushes those prices up, not down).

The "restructuring" is simply an attempt to obscure responsibility and shift blame. Medicare exchanges ask private payers to say "no" more often, make beneficiaries pay more out-of-pocket, and narrow provider networks (i.e., the same things done to cut costs in a commercial market like the ACA marketplaces), hopefully drawing the ire of the public away from the politicians in the process. Medicaid block grants aim to arbitrarily spend less money on care while putting states on the hook to deliver the bad news.

You could do the same thing now with zero restructuring of either program, just by allowing/requiring Medicare to restrict access to services and providers and by cutting or capping the federal match for state Medicaid spending. But it's too transparent who is making those decisions and impossible to shift or share the blame, making that approach even more politically fraught than the GOP's backdoor approach. Hence the zeal for "restructuring."

ttwtt78640 said:

Filing your annual federal income tax (FIT) return for most is just an accounting formality - most have FIT withheld from each paycheck or pay towards it quarterly.

Click to expand...

Hi ttwtt.

You are correct, the benefit should have been seen already in decreased withholding. This is assuming that your Payroll provider adjusted your withholding early this year. Not all did.

Also, next spring's returns have more rates which should benefit the taxpayer. I have not studied the Act in the depth so I am not sure exactly what the effects will be, good or bad.

My point is that we should wait until we do our first set of returns using new law before passing judgment on the success. That is, unless we need a political football. But, I do not see much possible success for those who call the extra money "crumbs". OTOH : I hope they continue to use it. At least thru early November!

Taylor said:

Wow, so many people still having trouble understanding that when you cut taxes, it tends to affect those individuals who actually pay them.

Click to expand...

Ther is no point in trying to educate these people.
They have been brainwashed too far.

If things look back I will be getting paying 3k less this year than I did last year not including other tax credits etc ...
This is by the current calculators out there.

3k is a chunk of change.

Monte said:

Hi ttwtt.

You are correct, the benefit should have been seen already in decreased withholding. This is assuming that your Payroll provider adjusted your withholding early this year. Not all did.

Also, next spring's returns have more rates which should benefit the taxpayer. I have not studied the Act in the depth so I am not sure exactly what the effects will be, good or bad.

My point is that we should wait until we do our first set of returns using new law before passing judgment on the success. That is, unless we need a political football. But, I do not see much possible success for those who call the extra money "crumbs". OTOH : I hope they continue to use it. At least thru early November!

Click to expand...

Don't you find it odd that those who say that the tax rate cuts 'are mere crumbs' are the very same folks that say it is so massive as to balloon the federal deficit (national debt?) by billions?

Rogue Valley said:

6 months in, GOP tax bill an utter flop

The blue above. No citizen either approaching retirement or already there should even consider casting a vote for GOP Senators and/or Representatives come November 6.

These Republicans are looking to castrate/eviscerate you. Remember, they don't care about you, they're all millionaires who will enjoy a generous government pension and high-paying positions with lobbyist firms.

Related: The Top Ten Fallacies About the New Trump-GOP Tax Act

Click to expand...

Your source forgot to mention that last April was the highest tax revenue month in US history and the months since are at the same level.

The problem with these types of projections is they don't take into account the GREAT ECONOMIES tax cuts create.

calamity said:

Not to mention that inflation thanks to Trump's moronic tariffs is eating more out of people's paychecks than the measly pittance the tax cut gave them.

Click to expand...

So you are saying you agree with the fact that there is a trade deficit between our country and other countries, and it's a good thing we are being taking advantage of? Even though we are a country that is deeply in debt? That isn't logical. We need fair trade. If you don't believe in fair trade, I have a sinkhole in FL I will sell you for $20,000...

ttwtt78640 said:

Don't you find it odd that those who say that the tax rate cuts 'are mere crumbs' are the very same folks that say it is so massive as to balloon the federal deficit (national debt?) by billions?

Click to expand...

I believe the "crumbs" phrase is being used to describe the benefits the bill gives to middle and lower income taxpayers (just talking about those who actually PAY fed taxes...). What that tax bill gives the mega wealthy isn't crumbs, it's the entire bakery.

This picture cracks me up:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/29/big-donors-republican-tax-cuts-374842

That's who demanded this cut, and got it. What little you and I see will be completely wiped out if they are successful with the next phase, which is trying to get rid of SS and Medicare.

<alt>doxygen said:

I believe the "crumbs" phrase is being used to describe the benefits the bill gives to middle and lower income taxpayers (just talking about those who actually PAY fed taxes...). What that tax bill gives the mega wealthy isn't crumbs, it's the entire bakery.

This picture cracks me up:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/29/big-donors-republican-tax-cuts-374842

That's who demanded this cut, and got it. What little you and I see will be completely wiped out if they are successful with the next phase, which is trying to get rid of SS and Medicare.

Click to expand...

So with approximately 50% of the income earning Americans paying ZERO in federal income taxes how do you give a tax cut to these people? Should all income earning Americans be paying something to fund these expenses?

National defense
International affairs
General science, space, and technology
Energy
Natural resources and environment
Agriculture
Commerce and housing credit
Transportation(Funded by Excise Taxes on gasoline and petroleum products plus autos)
Community and regional development
Education, training, employment and social services(Does not fund teacher salaries and school operating expenses but rather federal mandates and testing)
Health
Medicare(funded by FICA-payroll taxes)
Income security(Unemployment Insurance)
Social security(funded by FICA-payroll taxes)
Veterans benefits and services
Administration of justice
General Government
Net interest

Click to expand...

Conservative said:

So with approximately 50% of the income earning Americans paying ZERO in federal income taxes how do you give a tax cut to these people? Should all income earning Americans be paying something to fund these expenses?

Click to expand...

Why would a sane conservative write and pass a bill that cuts revenue when the government is already running a large deficit?

Also, your post seems to ignore this part of the post you replied to : lower income taxpayers (just talking about those who actually PAY fed taxes...)

<alt>doxygen said:

Why would a sane conservative write and pass a bill that cuts revenue when the government is already running a large deficit?

Also, your post seems to ignore this part of the post you replied to : lower income taxpayers (just talking about those who actually PAY fed taxes...)

Click to expand...

Because Conservatives understand that you don't give higher taxes to the bureaucrats that created the 21 trillion dollar debt until they account for every dollar? Seems that spending is ignored by you and the rest of the left totally ignoring that there never will be enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite.

Don't see an answer to the question, shouldn't all income earners pay something to fund the operating expenses of the Federal Govt.? Seems you are the one ignoring the issue and what expenses are really funded by Federal Income Taxes

Conservative said:

Because Conservatives understand that you don't give higher taxes to the bureaucrats that created the 21 trillion dollar debt until they account for every dollar? Seems that spending is ignored by you and the rest of the left totally ignoring that there never will be enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite.

Don't see an answer to the question, shouldn't all income earners pay something to fund the operating expenses of the Federal Govt.? Seems you are the one ignoring the issue and what expenses are really funded by Federal Income Taxes

Click to expand...

You are making even less sense than usual.

Fine, you win.:2wave:

<alt>doxygen said:

You are making even less sense than usual.

Fine, you win.:2wave:

Click to expand...

That's because you don't understand the role of the federal, state, and local governments nor the taxes you pay or their purpose. Why would anyone promote sending more money to the federal bureaucrats taking dollars out of the state and local economies that could be used to solve state and local problems? You have been indoctrinated by the left yet ignore the actual results of the left

Greenbeard said:

It's a flop because it's the only achievement of the current Congress and yet remains remarkably unpopular,

Click to expand...

The purpose of tax cuts is to lower overall tax burdens. As long as tax cuts achieve this purpose, it's not a flop, no matter how unpopular it is.

it's unnecessarily raising health insurance premiums for next year,

Click to expand...

Health insurance premiums have increased every year since 2013.

and it hasn't done anything to appreciably improve the trajectory the economy has been on for years now.

Click to expand...

Where is your evidence of this? St. Louis FRED GDP Now Forecast for Q2 2018 is projected to be 3.44% annualized. That is 50 bps higher than it was during the same period one year prior.

And now we've arrived at the inevitable "cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to offset the lost revenue" phase of the project.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "now?" There were always issues with the entitlements. It was never an issue of if; just when.

Mizzy22 said:

No,I don't

Click to expand...

That's absurd. Do you ignore Charles Rangel? Maxine Waters?

Casca XV said:

Your source forgot to mention that last April was the highest tax revenue month in US history and the months since are at the same level.

The problem with these types of projections is they don't take into account the GREAT ECONOMIES tax cuts create.

Click to expand...

Where is the improvement in the economy since the tax cut went into effect? The stock market is lower today than it was when the tax cut went into effect. Job creation has not increased over the level it was during Obama's last few years, wage growth is up a fraction of a percent - but so is inflation.

I do suppose we should wait until next spring to really get a good idea of what the tax cuts resulted in though.

imagep said:

Where is the improvement in the economy since the tax cut went into effect? The stock market is lower today than it was when the tax cut went into effect. Job creation has not increased over the level it was during Obama's last few years, wage growth is up a fraction of a percent - but so is inflation.

I do suppose we should wait until next spring to really get a good idea of what the tax cuts resulted in though.

Click to expand...

My God, are you trying out for SNL? You are not funny, of course neither is SNL theses days.

Average income increased more in the last 18 months under Trump than the entire 8 years of Obama.

Highest economic confidence in decades form both the people and businesses.

More jobs available than the number unemployed. Which has never happened except during WW2 when all the men were overseas fighting.

Obama averages 1.5% GDP and had it down to 1.2% when he left office. Within a few months Trump has it above 3% where it have averaged since.

There never was any real job creation under Obama. There were people getting hired back to jobs they were previously laid off from and Obamacare turning single full time jobs with multi part time jobs.

Casca XV said:

My God, are you trying out for SNL? You are not funny, of course neither is SNL theses days.

Average income increased more in the last 18 months under Trump than the entire 8 years of Obama.

Highest economic confidence in decades form both the people and businesses.

More jobs available than the number unemployed. Which has never happened except during WW2 when all the men were overseas fighting.

Obama averages 1.5% GDP and had it down to 1.2% when he left office. Within a few months Trump has it above 3% where it have averaged since.

There never was any real job creation under Obama. There were people getting hired back to jobs they were previously laid off from and Obamacare turning single full time jobs with multi part time jobs.

Click to expand...

Such BS.

When Obama took office? GDP had just contracted almost 10% over Bush's last 3 quarters.

Who are you kidding? Unemployment? It was over 10% when Obama took office. He handed over the presidency with the Dow up over 200%, unemployment was in the 4% range, and we had the longest peacetime expansion of the economy ever with the exception of the Clinton years.

Even annual deficits were falling. Only Republicans buy your revisionist history, and half of them know better.

Within a few months the Siberian Candidate had 3% gdp growth? Really? That must be why GDP growth for fy 2017 was 2.3%.

Trump didn't get his 3%-plus economic growth for 2017, after all

Hell, it isn't even 3% now.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3xvsrhADemLsh_psytKL56

Class dismissed.



I heard the Cucumber in Chief cry about the state of the economy when he TOOK office. He couldn't have hanged in 2008. Hell, he can't hang now.

Lock him up!
Lock him up!
Lock him up!

Howard the Duck said:

Such BS.

When Obama took office? GDP had just contracted almost 10% over Bush's last 3 quarters.

Who are you kidding? Unemployment? It was over 10% when Obama took office. He handed over the presidency with the Dow up over 100%, unemployment was in the 4% range, and we had the longest peacetime expansion of the economy ever with the exception of the Clinton years.

Even annual deficits were falling. Only Republicans buy your revisionist history, and even half of them know better.

View attachment 67235067

Click to expand...

Even if you take away Obamas first year in office his average GDP is 1.9%. The day he left office it was 1.2%, is that Bush's fault too?

The Deficit is the budget short fall that creates the Debt. Obama not only increased the Debt not only more than any President but all combined.

That Obama had a positive impact on the Deficit is the ultimate revisionist history. Q1 of 2009 was shared by both Obama and Bush. One of Obama's first acts during Q1 was to quadruple the deficit. In Q2 he cut it in half Democrats revise history by listing Q1 as Bushes economy.

Feel free to list the Obama policy that improved the economy? Trust me there are none I will humiliate you on this, I have done it a dozen times.

phattonez said:

And how does this differentiate them from Democrats? I understand the criticism and I make the same point, but do you think that Democrats don't do the exact same thing?

Click to expand...

Dems wouldn't put forth a tax plan that gives 87% of the benefits to the rich, especially when the economy is doing well and it's not needed.

So, no.

Risky Thicket said:

while not solving healthcare issue (yes that weren't solved under Obama).

Click to expand...

I'm going to stop you right there, because a statement like that beckons for qalification.

ACA was passed durnig a 72 day window, the only time Obama had a supermajority in the Senate.

It was a 2700 page bill, and there is no way to perfect such a major piece of legiislation on the first signing it into law.

It takes time, letting the bugs reveal themselves, and then amending it and fixing it.

Thing is, when Obama lost the senate and house, Repubs had no intention of letting ACA succeed, at any cost, they
wanted it to fail because they didnt want Obama to have a legacy. It can be fixed, but Trump and repubs will not do that.
The only reason Obama went with the ACA, because the concept of mandated insurance originated with repubs, he actually believed
that repubs would get behind it, and it would be a bipartisan package. He very naively didn't realize that repubs wanted him to fail.
they hated Obama, no matter that the concept of mandated insurance was their idea in the first place.

Compared to the status quo, ACA did a number of improvements. There was a net gain of some 17 million (as of 2015 ) people getting health care who would not otherwise have it. In my own case, as a senior, I couldn't afford $600 per month for
a plan, and as I was self-employed, I didn't have the benefit of cheaper employer plan. For the first time in many years, I was able
to get health care and it has been very good to me. It was meant for people like me. Of course, it's not perfect, and some people
got squeezed, but it can be fixed, but repubs will not do anything to fix it, they just want it to fail, period.

Thing is, were it not for ACA, the right would not even be talking about health care, or trying to offer a solution. One thing is certain,
they do not have a solution.

Hedgology said:

You mean individuals with the largest tax burden will naturally get the largest tax break?

You don't say...

Click to expand...

Actually it's not true when you factor a greater truth. You have to look beyond taxes. The wealthy own lots of property the appreciation of which offsets far more for the taxes they pay, which is not that much when you measure it as a percentage of wealth appreciation, which is not taxed until it's liquidated.

I do say.

Casca XV said:

Even if you take away Obamas first year in office his average GDP is 1.9%. The day he left office it was 1.2%, is that Bush's fault too?

The Deficit is the budget short fall that creates the Debt. Obama not only increased the Debt not only more than any President but all combined.

That Obama had a positive impact on the Deficit is the ultimate revisionist history. Q1 of 2009 was shared by both Obama and Bush. One of Obama's first acts during Q1 was to quadruple the deficit. In Q2 he cut it in half Democrats revise history by listing Q1 as Bushes economy.

Feel free to list the Obama policy that improved the economy? Trust me there are none I will humiliate you on this, I have done it a dozen times.

Click to expand...

You have never humiliated me. If that is your goal then you are not debating in good faith. Let me know so that I might report you to moderation on this forum where civility is a must.