I need help from the Lefties on the board. Do you agree with an esteemed Senator from Illinois named Richard Durbin that you/we/us do not deserve or have earned the right to keep a higher percentage of our hard earned money? This recent development is truly a head shaker. Durbin is basically saying we (US government) will confiscate every possible dollar from hard working Americans in order to take care of the Left's 47%.
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
I need help from the Lefties on the board. Do you agree with an esteemed Senator from Illinois named Richard Durbin that you/we/us do not deserve or have earned the right to keep a higher percentage of our hard earned money? This recent development is truly a head shaker. Durbin is basically saying we (US government) will confiscate every possible dollar from hard working Americans in order to take care of the Left's 47%.
I have no idea. But I was tuned into "Fox & Friends" this morning to get my daily laugh from "the three stooges". It didn't take long. Stevie Douchebbag opens the show by stating we could all "cross another accomplishment off of Trumps list, just check it right off, he got the tax problem solved, another 100 day accomplishment".
Really??? Trumps proposal is LAW already???
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA. What an imbecile.
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
I have no idea. But I was tuned into "Fox & Friends" this morning to get my daily laugh from "the three stooges". It didn't take long. Stevie Douchebbag opens the show by stating we could all "cross another accomplishment off of Trumps list, just check it right off, he got the tax problem solved, another 100 day accomplishment".
I'd have to see the original quote to judge the context. If he's suggesting a certain level of taxation is necessary in order to actually function, then yes, I'd agree. If he's arguing simply for people to be taxed as much as possible just so the government can have more money, then no, that's stupid.
I'd have to see the original quote to judge the context. If he's suggesting a certain level of taxation is necessary in order to actually function, then yes, I'd agree. If he's arguing simply for people to be taxed as much as possible just so the government can have more money, then no, that's stupid.
Trump's tax cuts: Trump's a doody head Republicans are racist and HRC won the popular vote
Dems whats your solution for the economy?: Trump's a doody head Republicans are racist and HRC won the popular vote
How do you plan on getting millions back to work?: Trump's a doody head Republicans are racist and HRC won the popular vote
Dems how do you plan to fix Obamacare? You talk about working with President Trump to fix it but what are your ideas?: Trump's a doody head Republicans are racist and HRC won the popular vote
And this is why they lost November 8th..... and will lose more in 2018
Here's the Democratic mantra on anything:
Trump's tax cuts: Trump's a doody head Republicans are racist and HRC won the popular vote
Dems whats your solution for the economy?: Trump's a doody head Republicans are racist and HRC won the popular vote
How do you plan on getting millions back to work?: Trump's a doody head Republicans are racist and HRC won the popular vote
Dems how do you plan to fix Obamacare? You talk about working with President Trump to fix it but what are your ideas?: Trump's a doody head Republicans are racist and HRC won the popular vote
And this is why they lost November 8th..... and will lose more in 2018
I need help from the Lefties on the board. Do you agree with an esteemed Senator from Illinois named Richard Durbin that you/we/us do not deserve or have earned the right to keep a higher percentage of our hard earned money? This recent development is truly a head shaker. Durbin is basically saying we (US government) will confiscate every possible dollar from hard working Americans in order to take care of the Left's 47%.
Do not know why anyone is upset. He laid out an outline top pays 35%, next 15% and the final lowest tier 10% he wants property mortgage deduction and another dedudextion I for get think charity and slash corporate tax to 15 % . and gave an outline to Congress this is fiser offer type of thing. Now Congress has to determine what the levels are what dedwctions to be included and how this will PAY for spending . how is this so wrong? . coming out of the gate house second in command from Maryland suggested that the levels are not so far off the Democrats goal of 20% tax on corporations so they can repatriotize the three trillion over seas for investment here. Watching those 'news',casts heck rachal maddow was using the national enquirer as a source last night I made up my mind then these are sensationalists who exaggerate reality. But for laughs in this fenswr CBS late night Colbert is funny....
Quote Originally Posted by sundance:
I need help from the Lefties on the board. Do you agree with an esteemed Senator from Illinois named Richard Durbin that you/we/us do not deserve or have earned the right to keep a higher percentage of our hard earned money? This recent development is truly a head shaker. Durbin is basically saying we (US government) will confiscate every possible dollar from hard working Americans in order to take care of the Left's 47%.
Do not know why anyone is upset. He laid out an outline top pays 35%, next 15% and the final lowest tier 10% he wants property mortgage deduction and another dedudextion I for get think charity and slash corporate tax to 15 % . and gave an outline to Congress this is fiser offer type of thing. Now Congress has to determine what the levels are what dedwctions to be included and how this will PAY for spending . how is this so wrong? . coming out of the gate house second in command from Maryland suggested that the levels are not so far off the Democrats goal of 20% tax on corporations so they can repatriotize the three trillion over seas for investment here. Watching those 'news',casts heck rachal maddow was using the national enquirer as a source last night I made up my mind then these are sensationalists who exaggerate reality. But for laughs in this fenswr CBS late night Colbert is funny....
I need help from the Lefties on the board. Do you agree with an esteemed Senator from Illinois named Richard Durbin that you/we/us do not deserve or have earned the right to keep a higher percentage of our hard earned money? This recent development is truly a head shaker. Durbin is basically saying we (US government) will confiscate every possible dollar from hard working Americans in order to take care of the Left's 47%.
I ran the numbers based on the increased standard deduction, the elimination of mortgage-based interest, and the elimination of credits for state taxes. My taxes are going up about 250% based on this latest proposal from Trump. I hope he's too incompetent to actually get that bill through Congress.
When millions of Americans see significantly higher taxes for 2018 (paid in April 2019), Trump's goose is cooked.
Quote Originally Posted by sundance:
I need help from the Lefties on the board. Do you agree with an esteemed Senator from Illinois named Richard Durbin that you/we/us do not deserve or have earned the right to keep a higher percentage of our hard earned money? This recent development is truly a head shaker. Durbin is basically saying we (US government) will confiscate every possible dollar from hard working Americans in order to take care of the Left's 47%.
I ran the numbers based on the increased standard deduction, the elimination of mortgage-based interest, and the elimination of credits for state taxes. My taxes are going up about 250% based on this latest proposal from Trump. I hope he's too incompetent to actually get that bill through Congress.
When millions of Americans see significantly higher taxes for 2018 (paid in April 2019), Trump's goose is cooked.
There is doubt among economists that tax cuts for corporations and the rich create jobs or improve productivity. Instead money saved goes into savings.
Problem is Trump's plan is nothing more than a repeat of Reagan's voodoo economics that claim tax cuts pay for themselves through economic growth. However there is no evidence that Reagan's tax cuts pay for themselves. Economic growth in the 1980s can be attributed to other factors.
Unlikely that Congress would agree to tax cuts causing worser federal deficit and higher interest rates.
There is doubt among economists that tax cuts for corporations and the rich create jobs or improve productivity. Instead money saved goes into savings.
Problem is Trump's plan is nothing more than a repeat of Reagan's voodoo economics that claim tax cuts pay for themselves through economic growth. However there is no evidence that Reagan's tax cuts pay for themselves. Economic growth in the 1980s can be attributed to other factors.
Unlikely that Congress would agree to tax cuts causing worser federal deficit and higher interest rates.
Once government programs are cut back, it becomes harder to reinstate them. This is what the Dems are anticipating. They are protecting pet programs for constituents and lobbyists that will be cut when the budget is reduced.
They also fear (the Dems) that an effective wall will keep out the flow of cheaper labor (nannies, landscapers, const workers, etc) and once a wall is there, it is there.
Plus these programs such as "victim protection" and the culture at ICE and Border Patrol are instilling confidence, and the Dems prefer the globalization of relaxed borders, unenforced laws.
So the tax resistance is the same as the border and illegal immigration issue--the fear it will be difficult to undo in 8 years, and they lose funding.
Jeeeezzzz, my IQ goes down everytime I read one of your posts.
Quote Originally Posted by Sabanesque:
Once government programs are cut back, it becomes harder to reinstate them. This is what the Dems are anticipating. They are protecting pet programs for constituents and lobbyists that will be cut when the budget is reduced.
They also fear (the Dems) that an effective wall will keep out the flow of cheaper labor (nannies, landscapers, const workers, etc) and once a wall is there, it is there.
Plus these programs such as "victim protection" and the culture at ICE and Border Patrol are instilling confidence, and the Dems prefer the globalization of relaxed borders, unenforced laws.
So the tax resistance is the same as the border and illegal immigration issue--the fear it will be difficult to undo in 8 years, and they lose funding.
Jeeeezzzz, my IQ goes down everytime I read one of your posts.
Funny, a discussion about taxes that ignores the actual policies proposed by Trump. Seriously, run the numbers. This is a tax increase for millions. The only ones who get a true decrease are corporations. My taxes go through the roof by this ludicrous proposal.
Funny, a discussion about taxes that ignores the actual policies proposed by Trump. Seriously, run the numbers. This is a tax increase for millions. The only ones who get a true decrease are corporations. My taxes go through the roof by this ludicrous proposal.
The only ones who get a true decrease are corporations.
This would be blatantly false
Run the math on his elimination of deductions then. His strategy to kill deductions for mortgage interest and state and local taxes will wreak havoc on many Americans. I ran the numbers last week, and my taxes will increase almost threefold.
Sure, those low earners will see a decrease, but it hoses many of us in the middle and upper middle.
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
Quote Originally Posted by Sidehatch:
The only ones who get a true decrease are corporations.
This would be blatantly false
Run the math on his elimination of deductions then. His strategy to kill deductions for mortgage interest and state and local taxes will wreak havoc on many Americans. I ran the numbers last week, and my taxes will increase almost threefold.
Sure, those low earners will see a decrease, but it hoses many of us in the middle and upper middle.
Corps get big time cut, much larger proportionally, and depending on what deductions you take and the bracket you are in for sure it is not an improvement.
I read some early discussions about it and I think my situation will be a net negative, raising the standard deduction to try and phase out itemized deductions is for sure a bad thing in areas where property taxes are high and local income taxes exist in addition to state. Pennsylvania for sure is a great example of many of these scenarios. High property tax, local and state income taxes..
This idea about cutting taxes for corps makes jobs is one of the biggest jokes I've heard in years...Corps hire when demand dictates, not based on how much income taxes are. All cutting taxes for corps means is more buybacks, more executive bonuses and higher stock prices.
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
This would be blatantly false
I am not sure of that either..
Corps get big time cut, much larger proportionally, and depending on what deductions you take and the bracket you are in for sure it is not an improvement.
I read some early discussions about it and I think my situation will be a net negative, raising the standard deduction to try and phase out itemized deductions is for sure a bad thing in areas where property taxes are high and local income taxes exist in addition to state. Pennsylvania for sure is a great example of many of these scenarios. High property tax, local and state income taxes..
This idea about cutting taxes for corps makes jobs is one of the biggest jokes I've heard in years...Corps hire when demand dictates, not based on how much income taxes are. All cutting taxes for corps means is more buybacks, more executive bonuses and higher stock prices.
Big banks are hoarding more cash than ever. Loans are down and profits are up. Giving them a tax break only puts more money in their pockets.
As I have said many times before it's a good thing Bush, Obama and friends bailed them out. Without the bailout it would have been much harder to acquire all that cabbage.
Big banks are hoarding more cash than ever. Loans are down and profits are up. Giving them a tax break only puts more money in their pockets.
As I have said many times before it's a good thing Bush, Obama and friends bailed them out. Without the bailout it would have been much harder to acquire all that cabbage.
Well Congress funded the government till sept approving a one trillui. Spending package to get us through till September. Our current rate of spending at this level is 2.5 trillui a year. Revenue is hanging it tough at 900 billion . at this rate of compensation spending we will 40 trillion in debt before Donnie's first term is completed.
Well Congress funded the government till sept approving a one trillui. Spending package to get us through till September. Our current rate of spending at this level is 2.5 trillui a year. Revenue is hanging it tough at 900 billion . at this rate of compensation spending we will 40 trillion in debt before Donnie's first term is completed.
I am sure that this can be sold over the summer holiday meet and greet events. But watch and see trillion simply will not be enough and funding will be stuck in a budget wish list package and we with have to another trlii to address after the DEC holiday. Break so the gridlock belongs the other party and we need a billion to take back congress putting common sense blah blH blah you know the last 8 years.
I am sure that this can be sold over the summer holiday meet and greet events. But watch and see trillion simply will not be enough and funding will be stuck in a budget wish list package and we with have to another trlii to address after the DEC holiday. Break so the gridlock belongs the other party and we need a billion to take back congress putting common sense blah blH blah you know the last 8 years.
The DemocRAT platform is to bail out the banks who loan out money they don't have. It's printed. It's fake.
Taxes are tangible on my ledger. Go ahead and tell people that "Cutting taxes will increase our deficit and raise interest rates..."
"There is doubt among economists..."??? There is doubt among fans that Tom Brady is the best QB of the past decade, and that he and Bellicheck know how to win games. GL with that.
It's actually both parties policy.
Quote Originally Posted by Sabanesque:
The DemocRAT platform is to bail out the banks who loan out money they don't have. It's printed. It's fake.
Taxes are tangible on my ledger. Go ahead and tell people that "Cutting taxes will increase our deficit and raise interest rates..."
"There is doubt among economists..."??? There is doubt among fans that Tom Brady is the best QB of the past decade, and that he and Bellicheck know how to win games. GL with that.
This idea about cutting taxes for corps makes jobs is one of the biggest jokes I've heard in years...Corps hire when demand dictates, not based on how much income taxes are. All cutting taxes for corps means is more buybacks, more executive bonuses and higher stock prices.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the perceived benefit of cutting corporate taxes is so the corporations no longer need to outsource to compete, and/or leave the country entirely. The result of this would be more jobs here, thus additional corporate and personal income tax.
Here in Ct we have been losing our corporate tax base to the state of Mass. The reason is simply that Mass offers state tax breaks to businesses that move there. It is a long term plan that is working well for Mass, and hurting Ct.
While simplified, I believe it to be a fair analogy.
bigreds daddy
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
This idea about cutting taxes for corps makes jobs is one of the biggest jokes I've heard in years...Corps hire when demand dictates, not based on how much income taxes are. All cutting taxes for corps means is more buybacks, more executive bonuses and higher stock prices.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the perceived benefit of cutting corporate taxes is so the corporations no longer need to outsource to compete, and/or leave the country entirely. The result of this would be more jobs here, thus additional corporate and personal income tax.
Here in Ct we have been losing our corporate tax base to the state of Mass. The reason is simply that Mass offers state tax breaks to businesses that move there. It is a long term plan that is working well for Mass, and hurting Ct.
While simplified, I believe it to be a fair analogy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the perceived benefit of cutting corporate taxes is so the corporations no longer need to outsource to compete, and/or leave the country entirely. The result of this would be more jobs here, thus additional corporate and personal income tax.
Here in Ct we have been losing our corporate tax base to the state of Mass. The reason is simply that Mass offers state tax breaks to businesses that move there. It is a long term plan that is working well for Mass, and hurting Ct.
While simplified, I believe it to be a fair analogy.
No, it is not accurate at all and we have discussed this in length a few times in the past but it has been a while.
As a line item on the corporate income statement, which item has a higher net value to the corporation, the savings from income tax or the savings on labor costs?
Of course labor costs have a higher impact on corporations than does a marginal tax bracket...because labor costs are more than income tax by a long stretch...so even if you were to take corporate taxes to zero, it would still benefit corporations to outsource labor, and they WOULD continue to do so.
It would be like saying to you this example...say you got a permanent break on your cable bill....say a 50 buck break because the cable company wanted to get more saturation so they offered a cost reduction locked in for life...well that 50 bucks is awesome for sure....but does it mean that you would not be interested in a raise at work, or getting cheaper gas prices, or if some food item was on sale or refinancing your mortgage if rates dropped?
Saving money in one area does not mean corporations will give up day in and day out cost savings on labor, nor does it mean they will add labor costs by hiring more if the demand does not warrant it. That is a lazy business practice and most businesses I know are not going to survive by making bad decisions even if they pick up some savings in another area.
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the perceived benefit of cutting corporate taxes is so the corporations no longer need to outsource to compete, and/or leave the country entirely. The result of this would be more jobs here, thus additional corporate and personal income tax.
Here in Ct we have been losing our corporate tax base to the state of Mass. The reason is simply that Mass offers state tax breaks to businesses that move there. It is a long term plan that is working well for Mass, and hurting Ct.
While simplified, I believe it to be a fair analogy.
No, it is not accurate at all and we have discussed this in length a few times in the past but it has been a while.
As a line item on the corporate income statement, which item has a higher net value to the corporation, the savings from income tax or the savings on labor costs?
Of course labor costs have a higher impact on corporations than does a marginal tax bracket...because labor costs are more than income tax by a long stretch...so even if you were to take corporate taxes to zero, it would still benefit corporations to outsource labor, and they WOULD continue to do so.
It would be like saying to you this example...say you got a permanent break on your cable bill....say a 50 buck break because the cable company wanted to get more saturation so they offered a cost reduction locked in for life...well that 50 bucks is awesome for sure....but does it mean that you would not be interested in a raise at work, or getting cheaper gas prices, or if some food item was on sale or refinancing your mortgage if rates dropped?
Saving money in one area does not mean corporations will give up day in and day out cost savings on labor, nor does it mean they will add labor costs by hiring more if the demand does not warrant it. That is a lazy business practice and most businesses I know are not going to survive by making bad decisions even if they pick up some savings in another area.
i'm far from a tax expert but isn't this some version of trickle down economics that we all know is complete bullshit?
also, what makes the most sense to me is that companies don't create jobs. demand creates jobs. and if you keep rewarding the companies/executives and friggin the consumers, how is that going to create jobs in the long run?
i'm far from a tax expert but isn't this some version of trickle down economics that we all know is complete bullshit?
also, what makes the most sense to me is that companies don't create jobs. demand creates jobs. and if you keep rewarding the companies/executives and friggin the consumers, how is that going to create jobs in the long run?
Established in 1995,
Seriously, run the numbers. This is a tax increase for millions. The only ones who get a true decrease are corporations. My taxes go through the roof by this ludicrous proposal. 
Hot Forum Topics
