• 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!

The trump tax cuts have given us 4, 5, 6 % growth and paid for themselves

Kushinator said:
Government revenue would have been $250 billion higher sans the Trump tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Government revenue certainly motivates you but personal revenue growth is what has generated a 56% approval rating on the economy for Trump.
 
Mycroft said:
Can you read?

The article said 7 in 10 owners...keep in mind these are small business owners...reinvested "MORE" than a quarter of their savings back into their business....not "at least". And your "converse way to say it" is not substantiated by anything in that article. These small business owners are not "rich people", but their businesses certainly benefited from the tax cut. 69% of them say they have.

But hey...it appears you have a hard on for rich people. So it goes...
Click to expand...

Yeah.. except this is bullcrap.

More than seven in 10 say they reinvested over one-quarter of the savings that resulted from the tax law in their business.
Click to expand...

That's bull. When you put money into your business.. its a deduction... its not taxable in the first place!

Secondly.. you don't reinvest your money into your business because of a tax cut... you do it because its going to make you MORE MONEY.
 
Conservative said:
Government revenue certainly motivates you but personal revenue growth is what has generated a 56% approval rating on the economy for Trump.
Click to expand...

Which has pretty much nothing to do with Trump. Unless you are one of those liberals that think that the Government is the be all end all for the economy. You know.. "you didn;t build that business.. Trump did".
 
Mycroft said:
Can you read?

The article said 7 in 10 owners...keep in mind these are small business owners...reinvested "MORE" than a quarter of their savings back into their business....not "at least". And your "converse way to say it" is not substantiated by anything in that article. These small business owners are not "rich people", but their businesses certainly benefited from the tax cut. 69% of them say they have.

But hey...it appears you have a hard on for rich people. So it goes...
Click to expand...

They always vote Republican. And they surely like the tariffs.
 
Conservative said:
Still seeking attention I see, what a waste of time. anyone that claims that people keeping more of what they earn is an expense to the federal gov't and has to be paid for has zero credibility as they are totally void of even basic accounting and reality
Click to expand...

You are too funny. YOU are the one that was arguing exactly that same thing when you argued that Blue state taxpayers weren't paying their share to the federal government because they got to write off their state taxes as a deduction.

You argued strenuously against those taxpayers keeping more of what they earn.. and you declared that despite those taxpayers paying in more into the federal government than they got back... it was an expense to the federal government.

Your lack of intellectual honesty is truly astounding.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. except this is bullcrap.



That's bull. When you put money into your business.. its a deduction... its not taxable in the first place!

Secondly.. you don't reinvest your money into your business because of a tax cut... you do it because its going to make you MORE MONEY.
Click to expand...

Where do you think they got the money?
 
Mycroft said:
Where do you think they got the money?
Click to expand...

From their gross receipts of course!.. Duh. If they reinvest into their business.. its an expense and is deducted. You only pay tax on the money you take OUT of the business!!!!
 
Conservative said:
Government revenue certainly motivates you but personal revenue growth is what has generated a 56% approval rating on the economy for Trump.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

It is the $1.1 trillion deficit that has run concurrent with sub 4% unemployment that is responsible for Trumps approval rating.
 
Kushinator said:
Government revenue would have been $250 billion higher sans the Trump tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Deficits don't matter to Conservative unless a democrat is president. Then the deficit will matter.

Kind of how he thinks its great that "more people can keep their money"...UNLESS.. it people in Blue states who are getting a deduction for state income taxes.. then suddenly that tax break is an "expense"... to the federal government.
 
Conservative said:
It gets spent to create dependence and therein lies the problem. Money getting to the states is for federal mandated programs not individual personal responsibility issues.

sorry but you remain very poorly informed especially when it comes to state and local revenue neither of which you acknowledged or answered
Click to expand...

Welfare is a small percentage of federal outlays, the big ones are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (the biggest expenditure here are those with chronic or terminal conditions).
 
jaeger19 said:
You are too funny. YOU are the one that was arguing exactly that same thing when you argued that Blue state taxpayers weren't paying their share to the federal government because they got to write off their state taxes as a deduction.

You argued strenuously against those taxpayers keeping more of what they earn.. and you declared that despite those taxpayers paying in more into the federal government than they got back... it was an expense to the federal government.

Your lack of intellectual honesty is truly astounding.
Click to expand...

So when Blue state taxpayers are deducting their high state and local taxes from their federal return they are paying their fair share in federal income taxes?? ROFLMAO
 
jaeger19 said:
Deficits don't matter to Conservative unless a democrat is president. Then the deficit will matter.

Kind of how he thinks its great that "more people can keep their money"...UNLESS.. it people in Blue states who are getting a deduction for state income taxes.. then suddenly that tax break is an "expense"... to the federal government.
Click to expand...

Right, even though those blue states typically pay out far more in federal taxes than they get back in federal spending. Cutting that deduction for state income taxes only increases the wealth transfers from wealthy high population blue states to poorer, lower population density red states.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, the 1.1 trillion dollar debt has absolutely nothing to do with the federal income tax cuts
Click to expand...

Using similar stupid logic, next time our CFO does a presentation of the company financials, I am going to tell him he should argue that a reduction in revenues has nothing to do with a reduced net profit for the company.
 
Conservative said:
So when Blue state taxpayers are deducting their high state and local taxes from their federal return they are paying their fair share in federal income taxes?? ROFLMAO
Click to expand...

The average wealthy blue state pays out far more in income taxes than it gets back in federal spending. The average more rural red state gets back far more in spending than it pays out in federal taxes. By curbing the state income tax deduction, you only increase that wealth transfer. I thought conservatives were supposed to be against wealth transfers and double taxation? Guess not as long as socialism benefits them at the expense of taxpayers in states like NY or California.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Right, even though those blue states typically pay out far more in federal taxes than they get back in federal spending. Cutting that deduction for state income taxes only increases the wealth transfers from wealthy high population blue states to poorer, lower population density red states.
Click to expand...
You might as well give up.
I have been telling Conservative this for a heck of a long time and he still doesn't get it
The high taxed blue states have been sending a LOT more money into the Fed Gov. and NOT getting anything near what they pay in back and the lower taxed Red states have been getting a lot more back then they send in and that has been going on for YEARS
that is one reason they can keep their state taxes lower they are getting money from the higher taxed states
I wonder what would happen if they either sent back a percentage of what the states pay in on a percent per person
Then the larger Blue states would be getting more back and the red states would be getting less
I guess they would either cut the state programs that this money is being used for or have to raise their state taxes
and IF they cut their state programs that help the people of their states and if those people start moving out and going to the higher taxed states so they can have those programs then the Higher taxed states should have a requirement that they have to live there for several years before they could get on those programs
have a nice night
 
Tbird19482 said:
You might as well give up.
I have been telling Conservative this for a heck of a long time and he still doesn't get it
The high taxed blue states have been sending a LOT more money into the Fed Gov. and NOT getting anything near what they pay in back and the lower taxed Red states have been getting a lot more back then they send in and that has been going on for YEARS
that is one reason they can keep their state taxes lower they are getting money from the higher taxed states
I wonder what would happen if they either sent back a percentage of what the states pay in on a percent per person
Then the larger Blue states would be getting more back and the red states would be getting less
I guess they would either cut the state programs that this money is being used for or have to raise their state taxes
and IF they cut their state programs that help the people of their states and if those people start moving out and going to the higher taxed states so they can have those programs then the Higher taxed states should have a requirement that they have to live there for several years before they could get on those programs
have a nice night
Click to expand...
PS
He once tried to tell me it was because there are more retired people on SS living in red states
well according to the SS dept. there is over 50,000 more people in NY on SS then there is in FLA.
so that is all BS too
have a nice night
 
Tbird19482 said:
You might as well give up.
I have been telling Conservative this for a heck of a long time and he still doesn't get it
The high taxed blue states have been sending a LOT more money into the Fed Gov. and NOT getting anything near what they pay in back and the lower taxed Red states have been getting a lot more back then they send in and that has been going on for YEARS
that is one reason they can keep their state taxes lower they are getting money from the higher taxed states
I wonder what would happen if they either sent back a percentage of what the states pay in on a percent per person
Then the larger Blue states would be getting more back and the red states would be getting less
I guess they would either cut the state programs that this money is being used for or have to raise their state taxes
and IF they cut their state programs that help the people of their states and if those people start moving out and going to the higher taxed states so they can have those programs then the Higher taxed states should have a requirement that they have to live there for several years before they could get on those programs
have a nice night
Click to expand...

Since you have to grasp two different variables in your head at once to understand that, its a concept that requires at least average intelligence to grasp, so maybe that is the issue? ;)
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Using similar stupid logic, next time our CFO does a presentation of the company financials, I am going to tell him he should argue that a reduction in revenues has nothing to do with a reduced net profit for the company.
Click to expand...

What is stupid is claims by the left that tax cuts have to be paid for and that Blue states give more to the federal gov't than they get back as taxes have absolutely nothing to do with federal mandates that bureaucrats create. Taxes are paid by employed people thus population plays a more important role. Mandates are policies created by the bureaucrats and go to the states regardless of the FIT paid
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The average wealthy blue state pays out far more in income taxes than it gets back in federal spending. The average more rural red state gets back far more in spending than it pays out in federal taxes. By curbing the state income tax deduction, you only increase that wealth transfer. I thought conservatives were supposed to be against wealth transfers and double taxation? Guess not as long as socialism benefits them at the expense of taxpayers in states like NY or California.
Click to expand...

The average wealthy blue state citizens are used to deducting their high state and local taxes fully from their Federal returns meaning they pay less in federal income taxes than red states without those high state and local taxes. Ignorance by the left on this issue is staggering
 
Kushinator said:
Outlays - Revenue ≥ 0 = deficit
Click to expand...
He doesn't understand that in the unified budget FICA does pay for SS and Medicare
but there are other programs that are in the Mandatory part of the budget they don't pay for, so FIT , CIT and ex. taxes have to pay for
Interest on the money they " borrowed " from the SS trust fund they used to keep deficits down is just one of them
Yes FIT , Cit, and exc. taxes were meant just to pay for discretionary programs but seeing they " borrowed " money from the SS trust fund they have to pay it backwith interest and they put that in the mandatory part of the budget.
the SS system and medicare have been off budget several times before, the last time they were put back on budget it was two Republicans and one Dem. that wrote the bill and Reagan passed it into law.
and he doesn't understand with or with out the property tax exemption the high taxed states are still paying way more into the Fed. gov. and not getting any wheres near that amount of money back
Maybe IF they got their fair share back they wouldn't have such high taxes and the lower taxed states would have higher taxes.
it doesn't seem fair to me that the higher taxed states have to pay more in and get less back then they pay in just so the lower taxed states can get more back then they pay in
it should go back to the states on a per person percentage rate, so it is fair to all states
and not take from the higher taxed blue states and give to the lower taxed red states
He has said before that it was because all the people in the high taxed states were moving to the lower taxed states so they take their SS with them well as I said last night after looking it up on the SS website there are more people in NY and Cal that get SS then in Fla , and FLA gets a lot more back from the FED. then Cal or NY
Good luck with him
have a nice day
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom