Posted:
#1
Dear G-d bring back the swamp, This soap opera is insane! 
10 % tax cut for the middle class ? But we must cut SS & Medicare to expensive?
...
Views: 1044
Posts: 24
Posted:
#2
Not to worry, the whole premise is ludicrous. Whether Congress flips or not, Donny does not the votes for another tax cut, nor does anyone have the votes to cut Social Security and/or Medicare.
The real problems facing the administration before the mid-terms now are a falling market (thanx to Donnie's tariffs), and consumer inflation that will eat up the tax cut he gave the middle class last year (also, thanx to tariffs). Of course it is NEVER his fault or HIS mismanagement. This time it is the Federal Reserve, although normally it is the prior administration, Hillary, or "fake news big media".
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
Posted:
#3
Quote Originally Posted by KeyElement:
Tax cut to the middle class ???? Try tax cuts to the corporations and house holds over 500 grand the working stiff making 20 bucks per hour received a 18 dollar increase in a 2 week pay period...And it's not permit but the corporate is
Not to worry, the whole premise is ludicrous. Whether Congress flips or not, Donny does not the votes for another tax cut, nor does anyone have the votes to cut Social Security and/or Medicare.
The real problems facing the administration before the mid-terms now are a falling market (thanx to Donnie's tariffs), and consumer inflation that will eat up the tax cut he gave the middle class last year (also, thanx to tariffs). Of course it is NEVER his fault or HIS mismanagement. This time it is the Federal Reserve, although normally it is the prior administration, Hillary, or "fake news big media".
Posted:
#4
Quote Originally Posted by joe pockets:
Tax cut to the middle class ???? Try tax cuts to the corporations and house holds over 500 grand the working stiff making 20 bucks per hour received a 18 dollar increase in a 2 week pay period...And it's not permit but the corporate is
Tax cut to the middle class ???? Try tax cuts to the corporations and house holds over 500 grand the working stiff making 20 bucks per hour received a 18 dollar increase in a 2 week pay period...And it's not permit but the corporate is
Not sure where your numbers are coming from. But at 41,600 (20 bucks/hr) you should see about 32-33 dollar increase per 2 week check. This addition to the check is what the company is not withholding from your check. The savings are at a much larger % increase than the 500 grand guys you are talking about. The other difference is for the tax brackets. This coupled with the increase in the standard deduction should be around 3000 this year. Plus, increase in child credit, etc.
No matter how you look at it --- this is a considerable increase for the average-income family. Now, what they choose to do with this increase in income is another matter.
I am not sure what kind of tax rate cut you think Congress would have passed. But for them to have passed this one was very good for folks that need more money.
Unless, you just preferred the higher rates or something?
Average annual salary: $39,900
New paycheck after taxes: $1,295.78
Increase per paycheck: $30.82
Average annual salary: $44,480
New paycheck after taxes: $1,437.31
Increase per paycheck: $36.10
Posted:
#6
Quote Originally Posted by joe pockets:
After taxes 80 hrs x 19.68 is 18.91 with 0 depends in Nj ...
After taxes 80 hrs x 19.68 is 18.91 with 0 depends in Nj ...
I am not sure what you are saying here? At first, I thought you were trying to say the increase would only be $18. But now I do not know what you are saying? Th numbers I listed were take-home pay. So, I am not sure what you are referring to?
Also, what did you expect? Did you prefer it to stay the same?
Here is another that they list for reference:
Take-home pay for a person claiming single status and one withholding allowance, with gross annual income of $50,000 paid biweekly, would increase by about $55 per pay period, or approximately $1,440 per year.
Posted:
#7
[Quote: Originally Posted by Raiders22]
I am not sure what you are saying here? At first, I thought you were trying to say the increase would only be $18. But now I do not know what you are saying? Th numbers I listed were take-home pay. So, I am not sure what you are referring to?
Also, what did you expect? Did you prefer it to stay the same?
Here is another that they list for reference:
Take-home pay for a person claiming single status and one withholding allowance, with gross annual income of $50,000 paid biweekly, would increase by about $55 per pay period, or approximately $1,440 per year.
[/QuoteYou can flip this any way you want ! My take home pay is less than 20 dollars...That said I would rather not have it than screw seniors out of a portion there SS & Medicare as Mitch O Ccnnell says it to generous..OK
Posted:
#8
Quote Originally Posted by joe pockets:
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
[/Quote
[/Quote
You can flip this any way you want ! My take home pay is less than 20 dollars...That said I would rather not have it than screw seniors out of a portion there SS & Medicare as Mitch O Ccnnell says it to generous..OK
You are trying to make it an either/or issue -- it really is not.
The issue they are trying to deal with now is trying to reduce the deficit and get the spending under control. The other question is always whether or not a reduction in the rate of increase is truly a cut or not.
We should also question why folks need SS to start with. We should question why we spend as much on any of the entitlement programs. We need to figure out how to bring the deficit down. We need to question many of the budget line items. So, we have a lot of things to figure out as far as where money should go, where it should come from, and what to do about reducing the deficit.
But, I wouldn't worry too much about a cut in SS & Medicare. I don't think anyone really sees that as a viable first option.
Posted:
#10
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
You are trying to make it an either/or issue -- it really is not.
The issue they are trying to deal with now is trying to reduce the deficit and get the spending under control. The other question is always whether or not a reduction in the rate of increase is truly a cut or not.
We should also question why folks need SS to start with. We should question why we spend as much on any of the entitlement programs. We need to figure out how to bring the deficit down. We need to question many of the budget line items. So, we have a lot of things to figure out as far as where money should go, where it should come from, and what to do about reducing the deficit.
But, I wouldn't worry too much about a cut in SS & Medicare. I don't think anyone really sees that as a viable first option.
Why do the republicans think that SS is an entitlement to begin with? After all the government makes no contribution to it at all.
Posted:
#15
I pity the party that screws with it ! The Gop was never for and since the 70s has been looking to dump it by "starving the beast" by running up the deficit to wear entitlements must be cut, GWB back in 2003 pushed hard in the notion of privatizing Social Security program via stock investments, we all know that would've worked out . Reagan was for it and against it two different times in eight years to his credit Eisenhower was 100% for Social Security ...Eisenhower was a good dude
Posted:
#17
Might be the first time I ever almost agreed with Slim. Yes, those of us that worked 45-50 years and paid every imaginable tax to support everything are darn well ENTITLED to that which was confiscated in the first place and stolen from the fictitious “Social Security Trust Fund” every year to hide deficits. Again fools, it is not a Republican thing or a Democratic thing, it is a them versus us thing, as in, sneaky politicians versus the people.
Next time you want to pick on entitlements, start with the Pentagon, whose ONLY answer for defense is “MORE MONEY”. The Pentagon feels that waste in massive amounts is OK, because accounting and cost control are impossible to achieve; even when it comes to easily breakable coffee cups at $1,200.00 each (for an Air Force squadron). No matter how much we outspend every possible adversary (combined) no one wants to demand better, just throw more money at them.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
darkhorse12, that's just uncalled for.. LOL
Hot Forum Topics
Established in 1995,Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Covers is verified safe by:
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 Genius Sports. All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.