• 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!

Study Finds Trump Tax Cuts Failed to Do Anything But Give Rich People Money

Conservative said:
You want corporations to pay more taxes for what purpose? We have enough revenue from those corporations to pay for expenses associated with corporations not enough revenue to fund SS and Medicare repayment and IOU's so why should corporate taxes be raised?
Click to expand...
So what is it?
FICA pays for SS and medicare or FIT?
FIT is only paying back what the Gov. borrowed from the SS system NOT paying the benefits people are paid
and YES SS is an entitlement program. people paid into it for years and they are entitled to get that money back
and I said I want the corps that are making Millions and Billions in US profits to at LEAST pay something in FIT
They do use some of the Programs that FIT pays for so why shouldn't they pay FIT
isn't that what you say about the 44% of people who don't pay FIT either?
YOU want them to help pay for the programs they use and FIT pays for so why shouldn't large Corps?
Have a nice day
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, then how much FIT should anyone making $20K/year pay? I have no problem with allowing low income folks to pay no FIT, since most already a higher percentage of the meager incomes in payroll, sales, property and excises taxes than those making the median income do. I would prefer a personal FIT system with only two numbers: a generous, yet truly standard, deduction (of say $30K) and a flat rate FIT rate (of say 20%) on gross income from all sources above that amount.
Click to expand...

5-10% to fund their own defense and the gov't that gives them the opportunity to live here in freedom, Payroll taxes fund their retirement, sales taxes pay for the goods and services they buy by choice as food is normally no taxable. Excise taxes pay for the roads. It is the operating expenses of the federal gov't that benefits all Americans
 
Tbird19482 said:
So what is it?
FICA pays for SS and medicare or FIT?
FIT is only paying back what the Gov. borrowed from the SS system NOT paying the benefits people are paid
and YES SS is an entitlement program. people paid into it for years and they are entitled to get that money back
and I said I want the corps that are making Millions and Billions in US profits to at LEAST pay something in FIT
They do use some of the Programs that FIT pays for so why shouldn't they pay FIT
isn't that what you say about the 44% of people who don't pay FIT either?
YOU want them to help pay for the programs they use and FIT pays for so
why shouldn't large Corps?
Have a nice day
Click to expand...

Are you educationally challenged, FICA funds SS and Medicare? Why should FIT pay back the borrowing of SS and medicare and not an increase in FICA?

What expenses does a corporation use that FIT pays for? Have yet to see a corporation buy groceries or being defended by the gov't as there is nothing to defend, the people need the defense not the buildings creating the corporation
 
Conservative said:
5-10% to fund their own defense and the gov't that gives them the opportunity to live here in freedom, Payroll taxes fund their retirement, sales taxes pay for the goods and services they buy by choice as food is normally no taxable. Excise taxes pay for the roads. It is the operating expenses of the federal gov't that benefits all Americans
Click to expand...

5 to 10% after how much of a "standard" deduction? Assuming the current standard deduction of $12K for a single person and $24K for a couple/family, that is hardly going to cover the cost of processing the required paperwork.

Hmm.... $20K - $12K is $8K so 5% of that is $400 - that's a bit over $1/day, whoopee!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
5 to 10% after how much of a "standard" deduction? Assuming the current standard deduction of $12K for a single person and $24K for a couple/family, that is hardly going to cover the cost of processing the required paperwork.

Hmm.... $20K - $12K is $8K so 5% of that is $400 - that's a bit over $1/day, whoopee!
Click to expand...

I believe every income earning American should pay something in NET taxes to fund their gov't and stand by my statement. There is no reason that any income earner excluding SS recipients who already paid the taxes they are getting back, not to pay something in FIT. A 20,000 a year employee paying say 5% or 1000 a year in net taxes is 90+ dollars per month. They learn that there is no such thing as a free lunch in this country or anywhere else in the world.
 
MTAtech said:
They got a greater proportion (e.g. p%) not just more dollars.

ahca-chart-5.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.jpg

Source: Pax on both houses: Charts: Just $1 Of Every $10 In GOP Tax Cuts Goes To Middle Class
Click to expand...

Not surprising. The tax bill was all about political repayment of wealthy donors.
 
Conservative said:
I believe every income earning American should pay something in NET taxes to fund their gov't and stand by my statement. There is no reason that any income earner excluding SS recipients who already paid the taxes they are getting back, not to pay something in FIT. A 20,000 a year employee paying say 5% or 1000 a year in net taxes is 90+ dollars per month. They learn that there is no such thing as a free lunch in this country or anywhere else in the world.
Click to expand...

Hmm... I noticed that you would not even give them a "standard" deduction. Rest assured that low income folks know the cost of lunch.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... I noticed that you would not even give them a "standard" deduction. Rest assured that low income folks know the cost of lunch.
Click to expand...

You noticed that I believe every income earner should be paying something NET in FIT to fund the gov't
 
ttwtt78640 said:
5 to 10% after how much of a "standard" deduction? Assuming the current standard deduction of $12K for a single person and $24K for a couple/family, that is hardly going to cover the cost of processing the required paperwork.

Hmm.... $20K - $12K is $8K so 5% of that is $400 - that's a bit over $1/day, whoopee!
Click to expand...
That's precisely why taxing poor people is more of an ideological principle than sound accounting. There just isn't that much revenue there to worry about. That's why bank robbers rob banks and not lemonade stands. If you want the government to earn more revenue, you tax rich people (e.g. where the money is.)
 
MTAtech said:
That's precisely why taxing poor people is more of an ideological principle than sound accounting. There just isn't that much revenue there to worry about. That's why bank robbers rob banks and not lemonade stands. If you want the government to earn more revenue, you tax rich people (e.g. where the money is.)
Click to expand...

Taxing consumption via a sales or VAT tax (on "luxury" items exempting things like groceries, medicine and utilities) rather than taxing income would work as well.
 
Conservative said:
You noticed that I believe every income earner should be paying something NET in FIT to fund the gov't
Click to expand...
But NOT Corps.
Corps.are entities and entities PAY FIT
again you want to let the top 50% of income earners " to keep more of their income and the lower income earners keep less
have a nice evening
 
The Trump tax cuts composed of both corporate tax reform (cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%), and across the board cuts to individual income tax brackets. Below is the percentage point decline for each bracket. Also note that $5,650 increase in the standard deduction.
2018vs2017rates.jpg

Claims that the Trump tax cuts go mostly to the “top 1%” are commonplace. Democratic Policy and Communications Committee co-chair David Cicilline claims that “80%” of the Trump tax cuts go to “corporations and the top 1%.” Nancy Pelosi has claimed that 83% of the Trump tax cuts went to the top 1%.

A more useful way to analyze the Trump tax cuts is so look at how they benefit each income quintile relative to how much of the tax burden they shouldered before the cuts. Before the Trump tax cuts, the bottom 80% of income earners paid roughly 33% of all federal income taxes, but received 35% of the benefits from the Trump tax cuts. The top 1% paid 27% of all federal taxes, and received only 21% of the tax cut, according to the center-left Tax Policy Center.

The Tax Policy Center found that more than 80 percent of taxpayers recieved a tax cut, with less than five percent receiving a tax increase. The five percent who saw increases were mostly wealthy people in coastal States who had their write-offs for mortgage interest and for state and local taxes capped. The average cut in taxes was $1,600. An analysis by the center-right Tax Policy Center in 2018 yielded almost identical results when it came to the share paid by earners; that the top 1 percent of income earners would glean 20.5% of the tax cut benefits.

So, the top 1% are not receiving 80% or 83% of the benefits, they’re receiving roughly 21%. However, there actually is some slight truth to Cicilline and Pelosi’s claims, but only in one scenario, and they’re to blame for it. What Cicilline and Pelosi didn’t mention is that they’re specifically speaking about the year 2027, when the individual income tax cuts expire, and thus the majority of the benefits shift to corporations (whose reduced tax rates remain unchanged).
https://bongino.com/no-the-trump-tax-cuts-did-not-all-go-to-the-rich/
Click to expand...

:shrug:
 
Tbird19482 said:
But NOT Corps.
Corps.are entities and entities PAY FIT
again you want to let the top 50% of income earners " to keep more of their income and the lower income earners keep less
have a nice evening
Click to expand...

Yes they re but my point stands and you refuse to acknowledge that we collect enough FIT and corporate taxes to more than pay for the items Congress created to pay for. Keeping more of what someone earns is a problem for the left as you have that entitlement mentality.

Post 913 is OUTSTANDING!!
 
Conservative said:
Yes they re but my point stands and you refuse to acknowledge that we collect enough FIT and corporate taxes to more than pay for the items Congress created to pay for. Keeping more of what someone earns is a problem for the left as you have that entitlement mentality.

Post 913 is OUTSTANDING!!
Click to expand...

Frankly, it's time to make them permanent. I mean how much of a booming, growing economy can one take? (Not nearly enough).

But, to be fair, such a growing economy would also be an ever greater draw for illegal immigrants.
But that's a far less expensive problem to deal with, i.e. enforcing existing laws, than record number of people on government assistance, IMHO.
Better to make American's lives and opportunities better, after all those would be US citizens and legal and legitimate voters.
 
Conservative said:
Yes they re but my point stands and you refuse to acknowledge that we collect enough FIT and corporate taxes to more than pay for the items Congress created to pay for. Keeping more of what someone earns is a problem for the left as you have that entitlement mentality.

Post 913 is OUTSTANDING!!
Click to expand...

Debunk This with Matt Palumbo | Dan Bongino

Daily free pod cast.
Daily free youtube broadcast.

Yours for the taking if you chose to do so.
 
eohrnberger said:
Frankly, it's time to make them permanent. I mean how much of a booming, growing economy can one take? (Not nearly enough).

But, to be fair, such a growing economy would also be an ever greater draw for illegal immigrants.
But that's a far less expensive problem to deal with, i.e. enforcing existing laws, than record number of people on government assistance, IMHO.
Better to make American's lives and opportunities better, after all those would be US citizens and legal and legitimate voters.
Click to expand...

Rob Peter to pay Paul. The deficit is approaching $1 Trillion. And Corporate Tax Cuts went almost entirely to multi-millionaires and billionaires.

corporate_Tax_Cuts_Benefit_Wealthy.jpg
 
Study finds that math is a thing.
 
Media_Truth said:
Rob Peter to pay Paul. The deficit is approaching $1 Trillion. And Corporate Tax Cuts went almost entirely to multi-millionaires and billionaires.

View attachment 67261577
Click to expand...

All that says is that everyone benefited....lol. The people paying the most will get the most benefit from a cut, duh.


Newsflash to the liberals out there, math is a thing. X percent of a big number is higher than X percent of a small number. Yay math!
 
Media_Truth said:
Rob Peter to pay Paul. The deficit is approaching $1 Trillion. And Corporate Tax Cuts went almost entirely to multi-millionaires and billionaires.
Click to expand...
Says a guy that claims Bush caused the 2010-2012 deficits.
 
eohrnberger said:
Cutting government spending that inconceivable to you?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is inconceivable to Republicans. They had control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for 2 years. Why didn't they do it? Better yet, why didn't they do it before they cut taxes, skyrocketing the deficit.
 
Jay59 said:
Says a guy that claims Bush caused the 2010-2012 deficits.
Click to expand...

Sounds like somebody needs a history lesson. The deficits started dropping like rock in 2010-2012. Obama owned those sharply decreasing deficits. Bush owned the 2008 and 2009 deficits, as he executed the worst presidential pass-on since the Great Depression.

US_federaldeficit.png

There's my evidence. Where's yours?
 
Media_Truth said:
It is inconceivable to Republicans. They had control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for 2 years. Why didn't they do it? Better yet, why didn't they do it before they cut taxes, skyrocketing the deficit.
Click to expand...

You want to credit Obama for lowering the deficit when the reality is that the lowest Obama deficits came with a Republican Congress. You also seem to have a problem understanding data as the entire increase in the 2018 deficit was due to SS/Medicare spending increases vs. revenue generated and debt service on the inherited debt. Rater sad to see someone like you incapable of admitting when wrong
 
Media_Truth said:
Sounds like somebody needs a history lesson. The deficits started dropping like rock in 2010-2012. Obama owned those sharply decreasing deficits. Bush owned the 2008 and 2009 deficits, as he executed the worst presidential pass-on since the Great Depression.

View attachment 67261583

There's my evidence. Where's yours?
Click to expand...

Your evidence EXCLUDES Inter-Government holdings which is part of the U.S. Debt,, What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? If you borrow from SS and Medicare creating IOU's that still creates deficits in Inter-Gov't holdings and that is exactly what happened. SS and Medicare fund borrowing reduced the public deficit but increased the long term Inter-Gov't holding deficit. Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt in 8 years, why? No recession, no wars, peace dividend?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom