Trump's tax plan.....You judge!

[hunarcy]

A distinction without a difference. All income and social security taxes are paid into the general fund. All social security payments are made out of the general fund. There is no different source of money. Today's taxpayers are funding all social security payments, just like any other welfare program.

As for employer and employee sides of social security, it's all actually paid by the employer. It's just which line of a form it's on. We pay both sides at the same time, the employee never sees the money. When we look at it in our accounting systems, it's all lumped together as well as the technical distinction is irrelevant.

On the other hand, it's all part of an employee's pay. We subract it all from your salary. We look at the total cost of employment, we don't just count their direct salary. Politicians want to get Americans to overthink it so you have distinctions in your mind that don't exist in reality. Just different lines on forms, that's all they are

I agree Social Security is all part of the employees pay because, as you said, from the employers point of view, it is the total cost of the employee.

However there is a stark distinction between a welfare program like food stamps and Social Security. All employees pay the social security tax, they don't all contribute to the food stamp program.

What does "contribute" mean?

Do you understand that 100% of your social security check is or will be paid by taxpayers? You didn't contribute anything to it, none of the check is the money you paid in. That was spent as you paid it.

Food Stamps: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients
Social Security: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients

Explain the difference

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

We've seen various points he made running to be President, but he hasn't presented a plan. Before that, you're just making it up based on your vitriol towards him

He has in fact presented plan...otherwise there would be nothing to estimate obviously.

Who Benefits From Donald Trump's Tax Plan?

Again, those are ideas he supports. Calling that a "plan" and comparing it with what he will actually propose to congress is a logical fallacy called equivocation.

He supports those ideas. The plan to congress will have to prioritize that and make tradeoffs. It will also have to account for getting enough votes to pass it. Trying to calculate deficit impacts of the ideas he supports is just intellectual masterbation

There is something REALLY fucking wrong with you.

That is his plan, those are the estimates of his plan. It is fiscally irresponsible plan.

What the final law will be is not known obviously, nor does it change the fact that this is his proposed plan. If he, or anyone else proposes some OTHER plan, I'll have no problem looking at it's estimated impacts.

So what if that's his plan. He can't make his plan law. Instead of whining on a message board, you should go to your Congressman and Senators and help them work on a reasonable budget.

 

[OnePercenter]

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

According to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Trump’s latest proposals would cut taxes by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with 47% of all cuts in 2017 going to the top 1%.

The tax cuts that Trump is now proposing are smaller than the $9.5 trillion in cuts he floated last year, but are also more tilted in favor of the wealthy.

Under Trump’s new plan, every income group would still get tax cuts, but upper income households would receive the most relief, not only in dollars, but as a percentage of income.

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

You know Nitwit, if you started working your ass off to become part of the 1%, then you would also get the tax cut. When you sit bitching and moaning that you only get welfare, well then you deserve to be miserable.

Working your ass off makes you an employee, Hiring people to work their ass off makes you part of the 1%.

Those who usually end up in the 1% have worked their asses off to make themselves that rich, unless you are a Kennedy, Heinz/Kerry, Gore, Clinton, or other liberal elite. I had to endure 110 degree heat working in a Hanger in Saudi Arabia, but made very good money(all tax free) which I used to make my small fortune. I used every tax loophole the liberals created in the tax code. Are you "Jelly"?

You forgot Trump!

Working your ass off makes you an employee,

 

[AntonToo]

I agree Social Security is all part of the employees pay because, as you said, from the employers point of view, it is the total cost of the employee.

However there is a stark distinction between a welfare program like food stamps and Social Security. All employees pay the social security tax, they don't all contribute to the food stamp program.

What does "contribute" mean?

Do you understand that 100% of your social security check is or will be paid by taxpayers? You didn't contribute anything to it, none of the check is the money you paid in. That was spent as you paid it.

Food Stamps: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients
Social Security: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients

Explain the difference

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

We've seen various points he made running to be President, but he hasn't presented a plan. Before that, you're just making it up based on your vitriol towards him

He has in fact presented plan...otherwise there would be nothing to estimate obviously.

Who Benefits From Donald Trump's Tax Plan?

Again, those are ideas he supports. Calling that a "plan" and comparing it with what he will actually propose to congress is a logical fallacy called equivocation.

He supports those ideas. The plan to congress will have to prioritize that and make tradeoffs. It will also have to account for getting enough votes to pass it. Trying to calculate deficit impacts of the ideas he supports is just intellectual masterbation

There is something REALLY fucking wrong with you.

That is his plan, those are the estimates of his plan. It is fiscally irresponsible plan.

What the final law will be is not known obviously, nor does it change the fact that this is his proposed plan. If he, or anyone else proposes some OTHER plan, I'll have no problem looking at it's estimated impacts.

So what if that's his plan. He can't make his plan law. Instead of whining on a message board, you should go to your Congressman and Senators and help them work on a reasonable budget.

Whining on the message board, lol and wtf are you doing around here? Whining about whining?

The current plan is fiscally unsound, you know im right, so just man up and squeeze out an agreement instead of endless, pathetic dodging.

 

[AntonToo]

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

Don't forget, Trump has to find a trillion dollars in new revenue for his infrastructure plan. You don't find that cutting revenues from taxes.

John Kennedy found that cutting tax rates brought in MORE money.

JFK's Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates

No they didn't. We had 2 billion dollar surplus in 1960. That was followed by 8 straight years of deficits,
until 1969, when we had a surplus.

Why did we have a surplus in 1969. Because the president and Congress imposed a 10% income tax surcharge,

to pay for the Vietnam War.

A History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States

I gave you a link to the NPR article and you obviously ignored it.

I gave you the mathematical facts. If you like Kennedy's marginal tax rates, then you should advocate for putting them back into place.

Of course I advocate for that. However, I will point out that we had a surplus in 1969 because we spent less than we took in...a 10% income tax surcharge wasn't the real issue, it was spending less and taking in more.

10% wasn't the real issue...because real issue was taking in more...which is what 10% was. Sure seems incoherent.

And spending less during Vietnam war...you sure about that one??

 

[NYcarbineer]

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

John Kennedy found that cutting tax rates brought in MORE money.

JFK's Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates

No they didn't. We had 2 billion dollar surplus in 1960. That was followed by 8 straight years of deficits,
until 1969, when we had a surplus.

Why did we have a surplus in 1969. Because the president and Congress imposed a 10% income tax surcharge,

to pay for the Vietnam War.

A History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States

I gave you a link to the NPR article and you obviously ignored it.

I gave you the mathematical facts. If you like Kennedy's marginal tax rates, then you should advocate for putting them back into place.

Of course I advocate for that. However, I will point out that we had a surplus in 1969 because we spent less than we took in...a 10% income tax surcharge wasn't the real issue, it was spending less and taking in more.

10% wasn't the real issue...because real issue was taking in more...which is what 10% was. Sure seems incoherent.

And spending less during Vietnam war...you sure about that one??

We took in more in 1969 BECAUSE of the surcharge.

For tax year 1968, the surcharge amounted to 7.5 percent of a taxpayer's regular tax liability. (The 10 percent levy was prorated since it was in place for only nine months of the calendar year.) For corporations, the process was similar: A new line on Schedule J of Form 1120 required companies to add 10 percent to their regular tax bills (or a prorated amount, depending on the corporation's tax year).

In 1969 Congress renewed the surcharge through the middle of 1970 but reduced it to 5 percent. Still, the tax raised substantial revenue -- some 55 billion in constant 1992 dollars, according to a 2003 Treasury Department estimate. As legal scholar Kirk Stark pointed out in a paper examining Vietnam War tax policy,

"The importance of the 1968 legislation to the U.S. budget situation in the late 1960s should not be underestimated."

Historical Perspective: Sacrifice and Surcharge (Copyright, 2005, Tax Analysts)

 

[BuckToothMoron]

....but I already explained that bills need to be paid and all that stuff, you are back at your original argument as if nothing happened.

The point of taxing rich is not that it increases anyone's salary(on the contrary it may even shrink it some), the point is to pay the bills (portion of which helps the poor) that we increasingly cover less and less of due to under-taxing and over-spending.


Let's go at it from the other direction - I will now use your very logic to say that we should change tax code to not tax any income above $100,000. That would help or at least not hurt the poor, right? Sounds sane?

A little math lesson then I will make my statement.
If you could spend 1 dollar a second, how long would it take you to spend 1 trillion dollars?
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minutes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365 = $3,153,600 a year. That is over 3 million dollars a year, how many people spend that much?
$3,153,600 x 1000 = 3,153,600,000. That is over 3 billion dollars for a 1000 years, still not 1 trillion dollars.
$3,153,600,000 x 31.71 = $1,000,000,000,000 That is just over 31,710 years to spend 1 trillion dollars.

So the government takes in over 3.2 trillion dollars and spends almost 3.9 trillion dollars in 1 year. Why doesn't the government not spend as much by cutting 1/2 of the budget that most goes to entitlements and those agencies that support those entitlements. If you have a "FAIR" flat tax, everyone pays their fair share, don't need the IRS, and when there is less government there is more money for people who work to spend and create jobs, as this isn't trickle down economics(Liberal term) but supply side economics. See a need, fill a need.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

I like the flat tax idea, but the income taxes collected don't really go to entitlement spending of Social Security and Medicare. Those are funded by the payroll taxes paid by the employee and the employer.

A distinction without a difference. All income and social security taxes are paid into the general fund. All social security payments are made out of the general fund. There is no different source of money. Today's taxpayers are funding all social security payments, just like any other welfare program.

As for employer and employee sides of social security, it's all actually paid by the employer. It's just which line of a form it's on. We pay both sides at the same time, the employee never sees the money. When we look at it in our accounting systems, it's all lumped together as well as the technical distinction is irrelevant.

On the other hand, it's all part of an employee's pay. We subract it all from your salary. We look at the total cost of employment, we don't just count their direct salary. Politicians want to get Americans to overthink it so you have distinctions in your mind that don't exist in reality. Just different lines on forms, that's all they are

I agree Social Security is all part of the employees pay because, as you said, from the employers point of view, it is the total cost of the employee.

However there is a stark distinction between a welfare program like food stamps and Social Security. All employees pay the social security tax, they don't all contribute to the food stamp program.

What does "contribute" mean?

Do you understand that 100% of your social security check is or will be paid by taxpayers? You didn't contribute anything to it, none of the check is the money you paid in. That was spent as you paid it.

Food Stamps: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients
Social Security: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients

Explain the difference

Social security is by design a generational wealth transfer. Meaning, the money I pay in today pays for those collecting it today. When I collect it, those checks will be covered by the people paying the social security tax at the time. We agree on that. And Everybody contributes/participates in Social Security, I can't tell from what you said if you agree or know that.

Not everybody contributes to the food stamp program, nor does everybody participate by receiving benefits. I think we are saying the same thing, I'm not sure what your point is, or what I have posted you disagree with.

The difference between the two, besides what I just covered, is one, food stamps, is direct wealth transfer from tax payers to recipients, the other, social security, is from one generation of tax payers to another.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

First, you didn't "explain" anything. Everybody knows why taxes are collected.

If you know why taxes are collected then why are you downplaying of importance of collecting them?

Yes we want to stimulate economy, but there is a COMPETING interest you consistently turn a blind eye to - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. Our budget deficits, although reduced significantly since Great Recession are projected to go up long term due to increased interest rates and continually aging population where worker-to-dependent ratio is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts will put us even further in the hole by 5-10Trillion dollars. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

Great, I'm not interested in discussing that. Again, my post have all been concerning what I consider to be a more pressing issue, the income gap.

 

[hunarcy]

No they didn't. We had 2 billion dollar surplus in 1960. That was followed by 8 straight years of deficits,
until 1969, when we had a surplus.

Why did we have a surplus in 1969. Because the president and Congress imposed a 10% income tax surcharge,

to pay for the Vietnam War.

A History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States

I gave you a link to the NPR article and you obviously ignored it.

I gave you the mathematical facts. If you like Kennedy's marginal tax rates, then you should advocate for putting them back into place.

Of course I advocate for that. However, I will point out that we had a surplus in 1969 because we spent less than we took in...a 10% income tax surcharge wasn't the real issue, it was spending less and taking in more.

10% wasn't the real issue...because real issue was taking in more...which is what 10% was. Sure seems incoherent.

And spending less during Vietnam war...you sure about that one??

We took in more in 1969 BECAUSE of the surcharge.

For tax year 1968, the surcharge amounted to 7.5 percent of a taxpayer's regular tax liability. (The 10 percent levy was prorated since it was in place for only nine months of the calendar year.) For corporations, the process was similar: A new line on Schedule J of Form 1120 required companies to add 10 percent to their regular tax bills (or a prorated amount, depending on the corporation's tax year).

In 1969 Congress renewed the surcharge through the middle of 1970 but reduced it to 5 percent. Still, the tax raised substantial revenue -- some 55 billion in constant 1992 dollars, according to a 2003 Treasury Department estimate. As legal scholar Kirk Stark pointed out in a paper examining Vietnam War tax policy,

"The importance of the 1968 legislation to the U.S. budget situation in the late 1960s should not be underestimated."

Historical Perspective: Sacrifice and Surcharge (Copyright, 2005, Tax Analysts)

Good grief, Hillarybot, if spending had increased at the same rate as the surcharge, there would have been no surplus.

What a burden it must be to be you.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I like the flat tax idea, but the income taxes collected don't really go to entitlement spending of Social Security and Medicare. Those are funded by the payroll taxes paid by the employee and the employer.

A distinction without a difference. All income and social security taxes are paid into the general fund. All social security payments are made out of the general fund. There is no different source of money. Today's taxpayers are funding all social security payments, just like any other welfare program.

As for employer and employee sides of social security, it's all actually paid by the employer. It's just which line of a form it's on. We pay both sides at the same time, the employee never sees the money. When we look at it in our accounting systems, it's all lumped together as well as the technical distinction is irrelevant.

On the other hand, it's all part of an employee's pay. We subract it all from your salary. We look at the total cost of employment, we don't just count their direct salary. Politicians want to get Americans to overthink it so you have distinctions in your mind that don't exist in reality. Just different lines on forms, that's all they are

I agree Social Security is all part of the employees pay because, as you said, from the employers point of view, it is the total cost of the employee.

However there is a stark distinction between a welfare program like food stamps and Social Security. All employees pay the social security tax, they don't all contribute to the food stamp program.

What does "contribute" mean?

Do you understand that 100% of your social security check is or will be paid by taxpayers? You didn't contribute anything to it, none of the check is the money you paid in. That was spent as you paid it.

Food Stamps: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients
Social Security: Money is taken from taxpayers and paid to the recipients

Explain the difference

If you know why taxes are collected then why are you downplaying of importance of collecting them?

Yes we want to stimulate economy, but there is a COMPETING interest you consistently turn a blind eye to - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. Our budget deficits, although reduced significantly since Great Recession are projected to go up long term due to increased interest rates and continually aging population where worker-to-dependent ratio is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts will put us even further in the hole by 5-10Trillion dollars. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

We've seen various points he made running to be President, but he hasn't presented a plan. Before that, you're just making it up based on your vitriol towards him

He has in fact presented plan...otherwise there would be nothing to estimate obviously.

Who Benefits From Donald Trump's Tax Plan?

How much money spent on the war on poverty?
Over, the last 50 years, the government spent more than $16 trillion to fight poverty.
War on Poverty at 50 -- despite trillions spent, poverty ...
www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/08/war-on-poverty-at-50-despite-trillions-spent-pove…

Seems that the war on poverty for the past 50 years has been a failure like the war on drugs. Maybe it is time to change the failed policies that keep the poor in poverty and allow supply side economics to raise all boats.

How about we come up with a definition of poverty that truly represents a persons standard of living?
The current definition-
Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).

There is no measure on the standard of living. In other words, a family of four who inherited a house worth $1 million which they live in, and has $2 million in a bank account paying 1% interest ($20,000 annually) would be listed as living in poverty. If they moved the money from the bank into a trust they would no longer be listed as poverty stricken.

I think it would be more useful to define poverty by ones standard of living as opposed to their income. Would anybody argue that people in poverty today have a higher standard of living than a middle income individual 100 years ago?

https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa364.pdf
During the course of this century, the afford- ability and availability of consumer goods have greatly increased. Even most poor Americans have a cornucopia of choices that a century ago the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts could not have purchased. Today more than 98 percent of American homes have a telephone, electricity, and a flush toilet. More than 70 percent of Americans own a car, a VCR, a microwave, air conditioning, cable TV, and a washer and dryer. At the turn of the century, almost no homes had those modern conveniences. And although Americans feel that they are more squeezed for time than ever, most adults have twice as much leisure time as their counterparts did 100 years ago.

 

[whitehall]

Yeah but Trump hasn't announced his tax plan. Does it make any difference to lefties? What the hell is the point anyway?

 

[nat4900]

Yeah but Trump hasn't announced his tax plan

So, everything on trump's website proposing is policies was all bullshit????
You then voted on bullshit?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I gave you a link to the NPR article and you obviously ignored it.

I gave you the mathematical facts. If you like Kennedy's marginal tax rates, then you should advocate for putting them back into place.

Of course I advocate for that. However, I will point out that we had a surplus in 1969 because we spent less than we took in...a 10% income tax surcharge wasn't the real issue, it was spending less and taking in more.

10% wasn't the real issue...because real issue was taking in more...which is what 10% was. Sure seems incoherent.

And spending less during Vietnam war...you sure about that one??

We took in more in 1969 BECAUSE of the surcharge.

For tax year 1968, the surcharge amounted to 7.5 percent of a taxpayer's regular tax liability. (The 10 percent levy was prorated since it was in place for only nine months of the calendar year.) For corporations, the process was similar: A new line on Schedule J of Form 1120 required companies to add 10 percent to their regular tax bills (or a prorated amount, depending on the corporation's tax year).

In 1969 Congress renewed the surcharge through the middle of 1970 but reduced it to 5 percent. Still, the tax raised substantial revenue -- some 55 billion in constant 1992 dollars, according to a 2003 Treasury Department estimate. As legal scholar Kirk Stark pointed out in a paper examining Vietnam War tax policy,

"The importance of the 1968 legislation to the U.S. budget situation in the late 1960s should not be underestimated."

Historical Perspective: Sacrifice and Surcharge (Copyright, 2005, Tax Analysts)

Good grief, Hillarybot, if spending had increased at the same rate as the surcharge, there would have been no surplus.

What a burden it must be to be you.

The only thing you and I have in common is that neither of us know what you're talking about.

 

[kaz]

Yeah but Trump hasn't announced his tax plan

So, everything on trump's website proposing is policies was all bullshit????
You then voted on bullshit?

So just to be clear, so everything Obama proposed on his website or in a speech, he's personally responsible as if he proposed it to congress? Every statement? Every idea? You'll stand behind what he said and hold him accountable? Every one?

Oh please ... say yes ... do it. Say you're going to hold Obama accountable for the standard you're setting for the guy two months from taking office. Say you'll do that ...

Go ... if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor

 

[nat4900]

Oh please ... say yes ... do it. Say you're going to hold Obama accountable for the standard you're setting for the guy two months from taking office. Say you'll do that ...

Go

Stop being an eternal scum bucket......Here answer the following simple question moron:

Should we or should we NOT believe what Trump has proposed on his website?
Yes .....or No.......???

 

[kaz]

Oh please ... say yes ... do it. Say you're going to hold Obama accountable for the standard you're setting for the guy two months from taking office. Say you'll do that ...

Go

Stop being an eternal scum bucket......Here answer the following simple question moron:

Should we or should we NOT believe what Trump has proposed on his website?
Yes .....or No.......???

Exactly ...

 

[AntonToo]

First, you didn't "explain" anything. Everybody knows why taxes are collected.

If you know why taxes are collected then why are you downplaying of importance of collecting them?

Yes we want to stimulate economy, but there is a COMPETING interest you consistently turn a blind eye to - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. Our budget deficits, although reduced significantly since Great Recession are projected to go up long term due to increased interest rates and continually aging population where worker-to-dependent ratio is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts will put us even further in the hole by 5-10Trillion dollars. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

Great, I'm not interested in discussing that. Again, my post have all been concerning what I consider to be a more pressing issue, the income gap.

False dichotomy. There is nothing inconsistent about NOT giving the well off another tax cut and taking on policies that actually reduce income gap.

Take a look at most equatable developed countries, find any with low tax rates? Nope.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

First, you didn't "explain" anything. Everybody knows why taxes are collected.

If you know why taxes are collected then why are you downplaying of importance of collecting them?

Yes we want to stimulate economy, but there is a COMPETING interest you consistently turn a blind eye to - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. Our budget deficits, although reduced significantly since Great Recession are projected to go up long term due to increased interest rates and continually aging population where worker-to-dependent ratio is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts will put us even further in the hole by 5-10Trillion dollars. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

Great, I'm not interested in discussing that. Again, my post have all been concerning what I consider to be a more pressing issue, the income gap.

False dichotomy. There is nothing inconsistent about NOT giving the well off another tax cut and taking on policies that actually reduce income gap.

Take a look at most equatable developed countries, find any with low tax rates? Nope.

Your claim, no links, so I know you made it all up. Provide link to site to support your LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES

 

[hunarcy]

I gave you the mathematical facts. If you like Kennedy's marginal tax rates, then you should advocate for putting them back into place.

Of course I advocate for that. However, I will point out that we had a surplus in 1969 because we spent less than we took in...a 10% income tax surcharge wasn't the real issue, it was spending less and taking in more.

10% wasn't the real issue...because real issue was taking in more...which is what 10% was. Sure seems incoherent.

And spending less during Vietnam war...you sure about that one??

We took in more in 1969 BECAUSE of the surcharge.

For tax year 1968, the surcharge amounted to 7.5 percent of a taxpayer's regular tax liability. (The 10 percent levy was prorated since it was in place for only nine months of the calendar year.) For corporations, the process was similar: A new line on Schedule J of Form 1120 required companies to add 10 percent to their regular tax bills (or a prorated amount, depending on the corporation's tax year).

In 1969 Congress renewed the surcharge through the middle of 1970 but reduced it to 5 percent. Still, the tax raised substantial revenue -- some 55 billion in constant 1992 dollars, according to a 2003 Treasury Department estimate. As legal scholar Kirk Stark pointed out in a paper examining Vietnam War tax policy,

"The importance of the 1968 legislation to the U.S. budget situation in the late 1960s should not be underestimated."

Historical Perspective: Sacrifice and Surcharge (Copyright, 2005, Tax Analysts)

Good grief, Hillarybot, if spending had increased at the same rate as the surcharge, there would have been no surplus.

What a burden it must be to be you.

The only thing you and I have in common is that neither of us know what you're talking about.

I agree. You just keep posting propaganda that you can't defend and I'll show mercy by passing it by

 

[hunarcy]

First, you didn't "explain" anything. Everybody knows why taxes are collected.

If you know why taxes are collected then why are you downplaying of importance of collecting them?

Yes we want to stimulate economy, but there is a COMPETING interest you consistently turn a blind eye to - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. Our budget deficits, although reduced significantly since Great Recession are projected to go up long term due to increased interest rates and continually aging population where worker-to-dependent ratio is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts will put us even further in the hole by 5-10Trillion dollars. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

Great, I'm not interested in discussing that. Again, my post have all been concerning what I consider to be a more pressing issue, the income gap.

False dichotomy. There is nothing inconsistent about NOT giving the well off another tax cut and taking on policies that actually reduce income gap.

Take a look at most equatable developed countries, find any with low tax rates? Nope.

that's because most of their money is needed to fulfill the promises their governments made to stay in power.

 

[AntonToo]

If you know why taxes are collected then why are you downplaying of importance of collecting them?

Yes we want to stimulate economy, but there is a COMPETING interest you consistently turn a blind eye to - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO. Our budget deficits, although reduced significantly since Great Recession are projected to go up long term due to increased interest rates and continually aging population where worker-to-dependent ratio is dropping.

Trump's tax cuts will put us even further in the hole by 5-10Trillion dollars. It is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

I have no idea where you're going or what your point is other than saying you don't like anything about Trumps budget. I think I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who is not so partisan, and can exhibit a bit of objective thinking. So I'll just concede all your points and say whatever you think the tax rates should be is right, and I'll look for someone interested in discussing the income gap, like I have been trying to do all along. Bye.

Ridiculous, taking fiscally responsible positions is not partisan.

My point is not very complex to understand - Trump's tax-cutting plan is fiscally irresponsible. That is not a partisan opinion, that is a fact. You just refuse to consider that because that probably means agreeing with me !GASP!

Great, I'm not interested in discussing that. Again, my post have all been concerning what I consider to be a more pressing issue, the income gap.

False dichotomy. There is nothing inconsistent about NOT giving the well off another tax cut and taking on policies that actually reduce income gap.

Take a look at most equatable developed countries, find any with low tax rates? Nope.

Your claim, no links, so I know you made it all up. Provide link to site to support your LIES, LIES, LIES, LIES

lol wtf? if you baseless say LIES 4 times it makes it so?


Scandinavian countries consistently have some of the lowest income disparities among developed economies and are generally high taxing, free college and healthcare, high minimum wage, big on trade unions and other lefty style policies. "Socailist" Bernie always brought them up as policy examples.

Here's what income inequality looks like around the world