• 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!

Are the Trump tax only for the rich?

Kushinator said:
I'm baffled by how much people don't know, and then talk as though they are an authoritative voice.

SS and Medicare are entitlements by definition. So are food stamps, medicaid, unemployment, etc....

Some require contributions to be entitled where as others do not.



This level of ignorance isn't worth addressing other than to point out inadequacy.
Click to expand...

I agree. I feel like I’m trying to convince blathering idiots. It’s shocking how little people actually know, or are willing to even research with a simple Internet search!
 
code1211 said:
Well, I just completed my taxes for the 2018 tax year.

My income was pretty much the same year to year- only about a 2% increase year over year. Poor me!

My Federal Taxes owed reduced by 22%. Refund was down a bit. Taxes withheld for the year were down about 17%. I got a little more in every paycheck and still got a refund of about the same size: down 5% year over year.

Thank you, President Trump!

I've read posts from many of the Never Trumpers here that the tax cuts were only for "The Rich". I'm am decidedly NOT in that group of folks and yet I got a 22% cut in taxes.

As we all do our taxes here, how about we all post our personal experiences and outcomes?

Might be interesting to review the real world facts as opposed to the partisan hackery that has dominated the conversation through the year after the Trump Tax Cut was signed into law.

Estimates of Federal Tax income are that it will increase by 192 billion this year over last. The increase last year was 129 Billion and the year before that was 164 Billion.

The 192 Billion increase is the biggest one since the jump logged in 2009 based on the 2008 economy. In 2011, Federal Tax Revenue actually dropped.

I paid less and the Feds get more. Sounds pretty good! More work of the guy with the magic wand.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary | Tax Policy Center
Click to expand...

No, the cuts are not only for the rich—they’re mostly for the rich!

And, since I’m rich—hurrah for me! My children and grandchildren especially like the elimination of the estate tax. The reduction of corporate income tax boosts business growth, and the capital gains tax is remaining low, so I’m happy! Middle class will pay more in the long run, but I’m good with that. So—thank you President Trump and Republicans!
 
BahamaBob said:
Blattering more ignorance will not make you appear correct. It only highlights your lack of intelligence. If it were an entitlement program everyone could collect it. Because you have to "qualify" it is not an entitlement. To qualify for Social Security you have to have paid into it for 40 quarters. The amount you paid in also determines how much you can receive. No entitlement all earned.
Click to expand...

How you personally choose to define terminology is of zero importance to this discussion.
 
BahamaBob said:
You don't even know what an entitlement program is. Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements. Both are paid for by the recipients. Get a clue before you babble your total nonsense.

Beyond that, Trump has done nothing to hamper either of these programs. It was Obama who robbed $713 billion from Medicare to hide the true cost of Obama Care.
Click to expand...
The item of reducing the cost of Medicare, is more complicated than your sound-bite and detailed here. It's also worthy to note that the Republican plan reduced the cost of Medicare by exactly the same amount.

You also misunderstand the term "entitlement." They are not only programs that have their own dedicated funding source. They are also programs which one must meet eligibility requirements, such as low income. Thus, CHIP and SNAP are every bit an entitlement as Medicare.
 
Last edited:
MauiMan said:
The Medicare exclusions, eliminations, and reductions are on page 117. Page 118 has the totals.

I don’t think you read it! Here you are accusing me of fear mongering and lack of proof. Then, I point to an example in the actual budget document that supports my claim, and then you claim you don’t see it! Who’s the one that has “no clue”?
Click to expand...

You made the claim, prove it by posting the link and the statement that supports your claim
 
MauiMan said:
I agree. I feel like I’m trying to convince blathering idiots. It’s shocking how little people actually know, or are willing to even research with a simple Internet search!
Click to expand...

Most people get it, when will you, Medicare and SS are trust fund items paid for by FICA, payroll taxes. Obama cut payroll taxes which cut the funding for SS and Medicare. Presidents and Congresses borrowed from SS and Medicare using those funds for other budget items other than SS and Medicare leaving the fund with Federal IOU's that have to be funded. Trust funds that are solvent and are pay as you go don't run out of money unless borrowed or stolen. Keep buying the leftwing spin and keep ignoring reality.

What exactly are you trying to convince me of because you haven't provided anything other than words, no verification of your claims
 
MTAtech said:
The item of reducing the cost of Medicare, is more complicated than your sound-bite and detailed here. It's also worthy to note that the Republican plan reduced the cost of Medicare by exactly the same amount.

You also misunderstand the term "entitlement." They are not only programs that have their own dedicated funding source. They are also programs which one must meet eligibility requirements, such as low income. Thus, CHIP and SNAP are every bit an entitlement as Medicare.
Click to expand...

CHIP and SNAP should be state programs but you want the federal gov't to fund all these programs. Allowing tax deductions at the federal level give the states and local communities more of an option to fund these programs through higher state and local taxes supported by the communities. Federal bureaucrats are not capable of running state and local programs efficiently thus just spend in the name of compassion
 
Conservative said:
CHIP and SNAP should be state programs but you want the federal gov't to fund all these programs. Allowing tax deductions at the federal level give the states and local communities more of an option to fund these programs through higher state and local taxes supported by the communities. Federal bureaucrats are not capable of running state and local programs efficiently thus just spend in the name of compassion
Click to expand...
Whether those programs should or shouldn't be federal is a topic left for a different day. The argument for them being federal is precisely due to the fact that the states that need these programs most don't have the resources to provide these programs.

The reason conservatives argue to bump these programs down to the lower level is because they don't really want these programs at all. Thus, bumping them from federal to state, morphs to bumping them down from state to county, which then morphs to why doesn't your family provide for itself?
 
MTAtech said:
Whether those programs should or shouldn't be federal is a topic left for a different day. The argument for them being federal is precisely due to the fact that the states that need these programs most don't have the resources to provide these programs.

The reason conservatives argue to bump these programs down to the lower level is because they don't really want these programs at all. Thus, bumping them from federal to state, morphs to bumping them down from state to county, which then morphs to why doesn't your family provide for itself?
Click to expand...

So you claim but the real issue is most aren't required to have these programs and maybe with lower federal taxes they can get more money out of the citizens of the states to fund these programs or maybe a more novel idea would be to let charities do it. You seem to ignore individual responsibilities as the citizens of the states can make decisions on what programs to implement and people make a decision every day whether or not to move into a high taxed liberal state with all those social programs you deem necessary.

Life is about making choices and accepting personal responsibility. there are consequences good and bad for those choices but not in the liberal world. Your idea of a massive central govt. has created a 22 trillion dollar debt and still you want to give those bureaucrats more money with no assurance that the debt won't grow or continue to grow. Throwing money at the problem all in the name of compassion is what you support but the only compassion received is by the bureaucrats who implement the program. Creating dependence and buying votes is what they bureaucrats do

Why is it so hard for you to understand that states have term limits and the people of the states have the authority to force their legislatures to implement them. My family has always taught me personal responsibility and to take ownership of the consequences I create for myself. Seems a lost art with you and the left. Still waiting for why approximately 50% of income earners in this country not paying ANY Federal Income Taxes isn't of concern to you?
 
Conservative said:
Most people get it, when will you, Medicare and SS are trust fund items paid for by FICA, payroll taxes. Obama cut payroll taxes which cut the funding for SS and Medicare. Presidents and Congresses borrowed from SS and Medicare using those funds for other budget items other than SS and Medicare leaving the fund with Federal IOU's that have to be funded. Trust funds that are solvent and are pay as you go don't run out of money unless borrowed or stolen. Keep buying the leftwing spin and keep ignoring reality.

What exactly are you trying to convince me of because you haven't provided anything other than words, no verification of your claims
Click to expand...

You just made a claim, prove it by posting the link and the statement that supports your claim
 
Conservative said:
I see those as a reduction in costs not a reduction in benefits. Do you realize what the purpose was of Medicare? Was Medicaid in the initial program or was this just like all federal programs get one started and expand their scope?
Click to expand...

If there is a reduction in cost, is there not a reduction in something? How do you know it’s not a reduction in benefit?

I’m not sure why you’re asking me what the purpose of Medicare “was”. Medicare is a national health insurance program in the United States. Please explain.

Medicaid is a separate program for people with limited income and resources. Are you conflating the two? What is your argument?
 
MauiMan said:
From the whitehouse link: “Summary: The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 will extend the payroll tax cut and emergency jobless benefits through the end of the year.” — How does this support your claim? Please explain.

I’m reading the Wikipedia article and will get back to you later.
Click to expand...

What do you want me to explain, the cut in Payroll taxes cuts funding for SS and Medicare, that is reality. Yes, it put more money into the hands of the consumer but took money out of funding for their future.
 
Conservative said:
Obama cut payroll taxes which cut the funding for SS and Medicare.
Click to expand...

You're not smart enough to realize your own hypocrisy. Why are you against people taking home more of their own money?:lol:
 
Kushinator said:
You're not smart enough to realize your own hypocrisy. Why are you against people taking home more of their own money?:lol:
Click to expand...

LOL, because it cuts funding for their own retirement in a pay as you go system. I will never understand book smart people being so street stupid. By the way capping state and local taxes for deductions from their federal returns has to hurt a lot of blue state proponents although I am sure you aren't well enough financially be be affected
 
Conservative said:
LOL, because it cuts funding for their own retirement in a pay as you go system.
Click to expand...

All tax cuts reduce funding. The Federal government is more than capable of bridging funding gaps in the future. However, these tax cuts went to people who actually needed them.

I will never understand book smart people being so street stupid.
Click to expand...

Your opinion of who is smart or stupid does not have anything to do with the thread topic or any tangent discussion going on. It is simply a personal attack.

By the way capping state and local taxes for deductions from their federal returns has to hurt a lot of blue state proponents although I am sure you aren't well enough financially be be affected
Click to expand...

Even with the ability for citizens to expense their state tax payments, blue states still paid more into the government than what they receive. Expect this gap to widen.
 
Kushinator;1069819017]All tax cuts reduce funding. The Federal government is more than capable of bridging funding gaps in the future. However, these tax cuts went to people who actually needed them.
Click to expand...

No they don't FIT Cuts saw jobs created and FICA growth along with excise tax growth due to travel with that extra money. federal responsibility is been exaggerated and supported by the radical left and people like you who cannot get your radical agenda through your state and local governments


Even with the ability for citizens to expense their state tax payments, blue states still paid more into the government than what they receive. Expect this gap to widen.
Click to expand...

Has absolutely nothing to do with the federal mandates and laws sending money back to the states. I am happy to see the blue states now paying more as well since state and local taxes are capped as a federal deduction. About damn time. Hope it does widen as finally the Blue states are going to have to explain why their social engineering is so expensive.
 
Conservative said:
No they don't
Click to expand...

Yes they do.

FIT Cuts saw jobs created and FICA growth along with excise tax growth
Click to expand...

In 2014, FIT increases on the top income bracket were accompanied with job creation, FICA growth, etc....

In 2018, overall tax reductions on the top income bracket were accompanied with job creation, FICA growth, etc..., but not enough to keep up with inflation and population growth.

Has absolutely nothing to do with the federal mandates and laws sending money back to the states. I am happy to see the blue states now paying more as well since state and local taxes are capped as a federal deduction. About damn time. Hope it does widen as finally the Blue states are going to have to explain why their social engineering is so expensive.
Click to expand...

Of course you are. You're a partisan hypocrite.
 
Kushinator said:
Yes they do.



In 2014, FIT increases on the top income bracket were accompanied with job creation, FICA growth, etc....

In 2018, overall tax reductions on the top income bracket were accompanied with job creation, FICA growth, etc..., but not enough to keep up with inflation and population growth.



Of course you are. You're a partisan hypocrite.
Click to expand...

So according to you a job lost that returns is a job created? Where did you get your education again? Probably the same place that ignores the number of part time jobs or hours cut jobs for economic reasons and calls them another Obama success.

And oh, buy the way, Trump took office with 152 million Americans employed, it is 157 now and he did it in two years not with an 842 billion dollar gov't spending package that saw employment drop 4 million in 2009 and still 3 million in 2010. That is your definition of a success and why your books smarts show your street stupidity.
 
Conservative said:
So according to you a job lost that returns is a job created?
Click to expand...

Yes. It is a distinct event that has transpired with respect to reality. A person who previously was unemployed now is employed... it is an example of job creation.

Where did you get your education again?
Click to expand...

Grandma's basement of course!

And oh, buy the way, Trump took office with 152 million Americans employed, it is 157 now and he did it in two years not with an 842 billion dollar gov't spending package that saw employment drop 4 million in 2009 and still 3 million in 2010.
Click to expand...

You can't purposefully be this ignorant... When Obama took office we were in the worst financial and economic crisis since the 1930's. Your comparison is just a desperate attempt to highlight any possible data point in order to rationalize the underwhelming results of Trump's policy moves.

The fact of the matter is, job growth and economic growth are a continuation of a trend that began long ago... continuing to this day. However, recession is just around the corner. When it rears it's nasty head, you'll be here to blame Democrats in Congress until Trump loses the presidency, and then you'll blame the Democrat President.
 
Kushinator said:
Yes. It is a distinct event that has transpired with respect to reality. A person who previously was unemployed now is employed... it is an example of job creation.



Grandma's basement of course!



You can't purposefully be this ignorant... When Obama took office we were in the worst financial and economic crisis since the 1930's. Your comparison is just a desperate attempt to highlight any possible data point in order to rationalize the underwhelming results of Trump's policy moves.

The fact of the matter is, job growth and economic growth are a continuation of a trend that began long ago... continuing to this day. However, recession is just around the corner. When it rears it's nasty head, you'll be here to blame Democrats in Congress until Trump loses the presidency, and then you'll blame the Democrat President.
Click to expand...

No, sorry that isn't how it works, 146 million were employed when the recession began with a Democratic Congress and 152 million when Obama left office, that is 6 million new jobs. A lost job that returns isn't a new job created. I feel sorry for the school that tried to educate you

When Obama took office he had a Democratic Congress, NO budget, TARP, and his stimulus passed almost day one but was signed in February 2009. Employment at the end of the year showed 4 million jobs lost and only one million of those returned in 2010 thus 139 million employed two years later, that to you is a success and probably why you will never make it in the private sector. You wouldn't last two years with those numbers let alone 8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom