Manchin Screws 36 million poor and middle class

[EyeBRollin]

Paying off goernment debt takes money from the economy? Why?
Where would the $30 trillion go?

I’ll let you figure that out. You conservatives need to think about this, rather than repeating right wing talking points about government debt being “bad for our grandchildren.”

 

[Lesh]

Paying off goernment debt takes money from the economy? Why?
Where would the $30 trillion go?

poof...like all loans do when paid off

 

[EyeBRollin]

Why not cut government spending by $30 trillion?

The government doesn’t spend $30 trillion. Try again?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I’ll let you figure that out.

Awww......don't run away. DURR

 

[iceberg]

Funny. What is untrue in my post? He owns a yacht and Maserati and is against the Child Tax Credit.

you didn't know what child tax credit was til he was against it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

poof...like all loans do when paid off

If you pay back the $1000 you owe me, I don't have $1000?

Why not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The government doesn’t spend $30 trillion. Try again?

If the government spent $1 trillion less next year and $2 trillion less the year after,
they haven't cut spending by $3 trillion?

 

[bripat9643]

Bullshit. We run deficits every year and have been for over 200 years.

That's because of Democrats. They never stop spending.

Where does the money come from to “pay off” the national debt?

I just told you.

 

[g5000]

Here is how we can pay off the debt, lower tax rates for everyone, and get money out of politics all at the same time: Ban tax expenditures.

Tax expenditures cost us $1.4 trillion a year and cause tax rates and borrowing to be way too high.

If we ban tax expenditures, we can lower tax rates and won't have to borrow money any more. The budget would be balanced.

We could also pay down the debt, and when the debt is paid off, we can lower tax rates even more.

Taking away a politician's ability to put loopholes, exemptions, credits, and deductions into the tax code would take away the incentives for special interests to pay them to do so. Presto, instant campaign finance reform! Bonus!


Additionally, we need to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age to 70 and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living decades longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.


Dipshits like EyeBRollin and the Democrats think our country's debt problem is due to not enough taxation, when the actual problem is too much spending.


Just by eliminating tax expenditures and raising the retirement age, we would have such a huge surplus we would not know what to do with it. We could pay off the debt before our grandchildren reach adulthood.

 

[bripat9643]

You are smart enough to know what massive deflation is...right?

In 1914 the dollar was worth more than it was worth in 1789.

 

[bripat9643]

Here is how we can pay off the debt, lower tax rates for everyone, and get money out of politics all at the same time: Ban tax expenditures.

Tax expenditures cost us $1.4 trillion a year and cause tax rates and borrowing to be way too high.

If we ban tax expenditures, we can lower tax rates and won't have to borrow money any more. The budget would be balanced.

We could also pay down the debt, and when the debt is paid off, we can lower tax rates even more.

Taking away a politician's ability to put loopholes, exemptions, credits, and deductions into the tax code would take away the incentives for special interests to pay them to do so. Presto, instant campaign finance reform! Bonus!


Additionally, we need to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age to 70 and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living decades longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.


Dipshits like EyeBRollin and the Democrats think our country's debt problem is due to not enough taxation, when the actual problem is too much spending.


Just by eliminating tax expenditures and raising the retirement age, we would have such a huge surplus we would not know what to do with it. We could pay off the debt before our grandchildren reach adulthood.

You've already tried this scam before. You're proposing a tax increase.

No one is fooled.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the government spent $1 trillion less next year and $2 trillion less the year after,
they haven't cut spending by $3 trillion?

According to the Demcortats if you increast spensing by $500B one year and then only $300B the next year, you have cut spending.

 

[g5000]

You are smart enough to know what massive deflation is...right?

Yes, I know what deflation is. Your point?

 

[EyeBRollin]

That's because of Democrats. They never stop spending.

This is rich. Which party gave a $2 trillion tax cut for the rich in 2017? REPUBLICANS.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Awww......don't run away. DURR

If the government spent $1 trillion less next year and $2 trillion less the year after,
they haven't cut spending by $3 trillion?

You've already tried this scam before. You're proposing a tax increase.

No one is fooled.

According to the Demcortats if you increast spensing by $500B one year and then only $300B the next year, you have cut spending.

No. You conservatives are just too ignorant to figure out that you’ve been conned on national debt. The rich actually have you bootlickers opposing government spending while championing tax cuts for the rich. It’s ironic, funny, and sad.

 

[bripat9643]

This is rich. Which party gave a $2 trillion tax cut for the rich in 2017? REPUBLICANS.

Tax cuts are not spending, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

No. You conservatives are just too ignorant to figure out that you’ve been conned on national debt. The rich actually have you bootlickers opposing government spending while championing tax cuts for the rich. It’s ironic, funny, and sad.

Only morons support paying more taxes.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Tax cuts are not spending, moron.

Hahahahaha hahahaha !

 

[g5000]

You've already tried this scam before. You're proposing a tax increase.

No one is fooled.

I have dumbed it down all that I can for you several times. It is not my fault you are too dense to get it.

So you obviously won't understand a word of this:

Does Tax Reform Still Hold?

In a recent article, Allen Manvel compares the estimated cost of tax expenditures for various years between 1986 and 1996 (see Tax Notes, Apr. 10, 1995, p. 293). Over that decade, total tax expenditures fell from 89.3 percent of income tax revenue to 59.9 percent. Most of that drop reflects the continued success of, or the difficulty of overturning, the Tax Reform Act of 1986. In recent years, nonetheless, the trend has been partially in the opposite direction, with tax expenditures rising from 55.2 percent in 1991.

The Importance of the Tax Rate

Many tax expenditures derive from deductions or exclusions from the tax base. Reductions in taxable income are worth more at higher tax rates. Budget enactments in 1990 and 1993 raised tax rates for higher-income taxpayers and were a primary cause of the recent rise in tax expenditures. Similarly, in the 1986 tax reform, much of the reduction in tax expenditures came about because of a lower rate. Note how the rate changes and tax base changes interact with each other. In tax reform, cutbacks in some tax expenditures allowed reductions in tax rates, which in turn made many remaining tax expenditures less valuable. Recent tax rate increases, in turn, increased the value of tax expenditures, encouraged an expansion in their use, and, therefore, required even higher rates of tax to raise the same level of revenue.

Tax History Project | History of U.S. Taxation | Tax Notes

Explore the Tax History Project to learn about the history of U.S. taxation. Browse the Museum, 1040 archive (1913 to 2022), presidential tax returns, and more.

www.taxhistory.org

 

[EyeBRollin]

Only morons support paying more taxes.

Says the guy that wants to “pay off” a $30 trillion national debt.