Where are the Fiscal Conservatives? GOP Tax Bill Adds $1.7T to Debt

[NightFox]

The good news (that I read this morning) is that the GOP Congress Critters are getting pushed hard to repeal the Obama Don't Care Individual Mandate in the tax bill, so it's apparently still in play.

How is sending individual market in death spiral make for "good news"?

Obamacare was designed to collapse the private insurance market

Obama put his name on a failure that will collapse the individual market?

Yes, apparently you haven't been paying attention, what did you think? that the Democrats were going to be in power forever? and that the insurers on the exchanges could survive without the federal government coercing people into over paying for insurance they don't want and covering their losses with risk corridors? What kind of a stupid fucking system depends on the federal government keeping private enterprise afloat with a mandated customer base and direct transfer payments forever?

Neither end of the spectrum wanted Obamacare to begin with and yet the Democrats just had to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING with healthcare, so what they did was pass this piece of shit in the hopes that it would move the ball forward on single payer.

WTF does that do for him and his legacy?

If it works out the way the Democrats hope, he'll be the one that ultimately paved the way for single payer, if not his legions of apparatchiks will just blame the Republicrats for the fallout.

RomneyCare was A WORKING SUCCESS when Obamacare was getting modeled after it, if they wanted a failing system why would they do that?

State program versus Federal program, not an apples to apples comparison, especially given that the State gets subsidies from the Federal Government to make it work and has far less complexity with respect to demographics, established medical practices, established institutions and geographic diversity.

Your conspiracy theory holds no water,

LOL, it's not a conspiracy theory, one of the principle architects of Obamacare came right out and said it and anybody that looks at the law objectively can see that it was never designed to be sustainable, it has to be propped up with risk corridors, mandates and mountains of regulatory variables whose interactions nobody understands the consequences of.

And don't kid yourself, if Republicans will go ahead with this the blame will rightfully be ON THEM, not Obama.

What makes you think I give a damn about the Republicans taking the blame? that finger pointing bullshit is for all you partisan lemmings to work out amongst yourselves.

 

[NightFox]

No one has answered the question. Where are the fiscal conservatives who whined all these years about the debt?
.

"They're dead Jim"

....but beyond the "debt accumulation be damned attitude" of the GOP HoR Congress Critters, the Republican pom-pom waivers should be looking at the details of what the HoR is proposing.

1. The Top Bracket is staying @ 39.6% EXCEPT the house bill includes a surcharge on incomes over $1 million, which effectively creates a new top bracket of 45.6% .. that's right GOP'ers are proposing to raise taxes on the "job creators"...

2. With the proposed elimination of SALT and Medical Deductions, taxes are going to increase for some in the middle as well... that's right the GOP'ers are proposing to raise taxes on the "middle"

3. Apparently the elimination of the O'Care Individual Mandate would raise revenues except the Republicrats are worried that would lose support in the Senate... that's right, all those "We're going to Repeal O'Care" promises from the GOP'ers.. just bullshit, they won't even repeal the Individual Mandate when it'll help them hit their own tax "reform" deficit target.

Right now the GOP Congress critters are scrambling to find ways to raise additional revenue to hit the deficit target but apparently nobody over in "fiscal conservative, small government" land is looking for ways to solve the BIG fucking problem... SPENDING.

So the GOP "base" is getting a good fucking over by the unprincipled dickweeds they voted for, they're try to do all these things they told you they were against, with Republicans like these who needs Democrats?

"You been had, you been took, you been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok" -- Malcolm X

The majority of middle class won't be itemizing, so doing away with the SALT deductions won't matter to them, those deductions disproportionately advantage the wealthy.


.

Unfortunately that's not really the case in high tax metro areas like NYC, LA, etc.., losing the SALT deduction can result in higher taxes for middle income wage earners.

Not to mention the fact that it's idiotic for the federal government to tax income that the earner had to fork over to State and/or Local Government no matter what the income level of the person, classic case of double taxation.

If the Republicrats would just focus on spending reductions then they wouldn't have to resort to all these shenanigans that run counter to their stated principles to cut taxes and they wouldn't end up just shifting taxes into the future (i.e. accumulating debt). If they'd do that I'd have some respect for them but as it stands now they're functionally no different than the Democrats when it comes to confiscating other peoples money, Borrow&Spend-R, Tax&Spend-D, same shit, different logo.

The good news (that I read this morning) is that the GOP Congress Critters are getting pushed hard to repeal the Obama Don't Care Individual Mandate in the tax bill, so it's apparently still in play.

See post #136.


.

Yeah and ? what does that have to do with the fact that eliminating SALT deductions will end up increasing the federal income tax burden on some middle income wage earners or that it's idiotic to tax the same income twice.

 

[NightFox]

Obamacare was designed to collapse the private insurance market over the long haul

How quickly you goldfish forget.

Before ObamaCare, insurance rates were skyrocketing even worse than under ObamaCare. The insurance market was well on its way to collapsing.

So if won't be any big deal if the Republicans hasten its demise by eliminating the mandates then will it? stop fucking around and get the shit over with.

ObamaCare did not reform health care, but it did slow the death spiral. It was a prop for the insurance companies.

The GOP "solution" is to return to an accelerated death spiral.

The GOP has never offered up a real solution. They have NOTHING.

The Democrats have offered up single payer.

So guess which one the American people will eventually choose.

You have obviously mistaken me for someone that believes that the Republicans have any more business trying to "reform" the healthcare system than Democrats do, neither one of these Crime Families should have ever been allowed to put their grubby paws on it in the first place. Government is the principle reason it's in a "death spiral" in the first place and expecting them to "fix it" is like expecting to cure cancer with more cancer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

GOP tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to debt: CBO

So where are those tea party conservatives that ran on a very strict ‘we will not add to the federal debt/deficit!’

Clearly, that policy does not apply to tax breaks for corporations and the already wealthy.

Lower spending. Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending. The biggest part of government spending.

Our tax rates are as high as they are because of them.

Eliminate deductions, exemptions, and credits and you can lower tax rates for EVERYONE.

Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending.

Not all of them.........

 

[bendog]

The good news (that I read this morning) is that the GOP Congress Critters are getting pushed hard to repeal the Obama Don't Care Individual Mandate in the tax bill, so it's apparently still in play.

How is sending individual market in death spiral make for "good news"?

Obamacare was designed to collapse the private insurance market

Obama put his name on a failure that will collapse the individual market?

Yes, apparently you haven't been paying attention, what did you think? that the Democrats were going to be in power forever? and that the insurers on the exchanges could survive without the federal government coercing people into over paying for insurance they don't want and covering their losses with risk corridors? What kind of a stupid fucking system depends on the federal government keeping private enterprise afloat with a mandated customer base and direct transfer payments forever?

Neither end of the spectrum wanted Obamacare to begin with and yet the Democrats just had to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING with healthcare, so what they did was pass this piece of shit in the hopes that it would move the ball forward on single payer.

WTF does that do for him and his legacy?

If it works out the way the Democrats hope, he'll be the one that ultimately paved the way for single payer, if not his legions of apparatchiks will just blame the Republicrats for the fallout.

RomneyCare was A WORKING SUCCESS when Obamacare was getting modeled after it, if they wanted a failing system why would they do that?

State program versus Federal program, not an apples to apples comparison, especially given that the State gets subsidies from the Federal Government to make it work and has far less complexity with respect to demographics, established medical practices, established institutions and geographic diversity.

Your conspiracy theory holds no water,

LOL, it's not a conspiracy theory, one of the principle architects of Obamacare came right out and said it and anybody that looks at the law objectively can see that it was never designed to be sustainable, it has to be propped up with risk corridors, mandates and mountains of regulatory variables whose interactions nobody understands the consequences of.

And don't kid yourself, if Republicans will go ahead with this the blame will rightfully be ON THEM, not Obama.

What makes you think I give a damn about the Republicans taking the blame? that finger pointing bullshit is for all you partisan lemmings to work out amongst yourselves.

I'd agree that the dems "had" to pass a bill that provided HC coverage to all people. I don't think that is inherently as corrupt or evil as Ryan's having to pass a bill that will lower the amount paid by the 1%.

Reagan was never opposed to helping low income retirees get HC. He opposed an entitlement for all Americans despite any need. And Reagan famously, and not without some truth, said he didn't worry about the rich because they could look after themselves.

 

[AntonToo]

It's not weird, it's called being very far on right side of Laffer Curve. Almost no one was stupid enough to ride in the 90% tax braket and tax avoidance was rampant.

But at 39% and modern record keeping we are well on left side of the curve and reductions here do cause reduction in revenues.

So tell the class, where is the sweet spot?
.

Depends on type of tax, collection system and social factors. So there are a lot of answers.

Consensus for American income taxes is at least 50% (that's where most conservative, not liberal, macro economic opinion is)

Tax Analysts -- What Is the Revenue-Maximizing Tax Rate?

We of course DO NOT NEED maximized collections, we just need enough to pay for the spending.

It's not weird, it's called being very far on right side of Laffer Curve. Almost no one was stupid enough to ride in the 90% tax braket and tax avoidance was rampant.

But at 39% and modern record keeping we are well on left side of the curve and reductions here do cause reduction in revenues.

So tell the class, where is the sweet spot?
.

Depends on type of tax, collection system and social factors. So there are a lot of answers.

Consensus for American income taxes is at least 50% (that's where most conservative, not liberal, macro economic opinion is)

Tax Analysts -- What Is the Revenue-Maximizing Tax Rate?

We of course DO NOT NEED maximized collections, we just need enough to pay for the spending.

All this theoretical stuff is fun, what concerns me is the inequity in current law. I'll give you a few examples. Like the refundable child tax credit, it's nothing but another welfare program embedded in the tax code, you want a damn welfare program do bury it in the tax code, put it in the damn budget so people can see exactly what we're spending on welfare.

Second people should pay the same taxes on the same incomes. That little thing about equal treatment under the 14th Amendment comes to mind. But that's not the case, they use the tax code for social engineering, rewarding people for the decisions the government endorses and taxing people at a higher rate who chose otherwise. Like people that chose not to have children, or a mortgage or live in lower tax States. People living in TN with no children or mortgage making $100,000 should pay the exact same tax as someone living in NY with 4 kids and a house making the same.

The way it is now, the folks in TN are subsidizing the life style of the people of NY, because even if they have the same house, number of kids and income, the folks in TN are still paying more to the feds because of the SALT deductions. That ain't right, how about we level the playing field? That applies to everyone regardless of tax rate.


.

Let’s get something straight - NY taxpayers subsidize TN people, not the other way around. Because TN gets more spending from feds than they put in ($1.6 for every $1 TN pays in).

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

People in New York STILL PAY MORE TAXES even with SALT deduction so your argument about them getting something extra is nonsense.

Finally, to live comparably to TN in NY your income needs to be at least 30% higher, which means that per-lifestyle you are paying FEDS more taxes even after SALT deductions.

You can deflect 10 ways form Sunday, it doesn't alter the FACT that the same income is treated differently by the current tax law depending on where and how you chose to live. That is NOT equal treatment under the law.
.

Nonsense it is not treated differently - in law the deduction of SALT is UNIFORM for all states, it just so happens that different places have different taxes.

Taxing a taxed part of income is blatant double taxation, which I THOUGHT you were against.

 

[rightwinger]

Fiscal Conservatives are laying low waiting for the next Democratic President

 

[OKTexas]

No one has answered the question. Where are the fiscal conservatives who whined all these years about the debt?
.

"They're dead Jim"

....but beyond the "debt accumulation be damned attitude" of the GOP HoR Congress Critters, the Republican pom-pom waivers should be looking at the details of what the HoR is proposing.

1. The Top Bracket is staying @ 39.6% EXCEPT the house bill includes a surcharge on incomes over $1 million, which effectively creates a new top bracket of 45.6% .. that's right GOP'ers are proposing to raise taxes on the "job creators"...

2. With the proposed elimination of SALT and Medical Deductions, taxes are going to increase for some in the middle as well... that's right the GOP'ers are proposing to raise taxes on the "middle"

3. Apparently the elimination of the O'Care Individual Mandate would raise revenues except the Republicrats are worried that would lose support in the Senate... that's right, all those "We're going to Repeal O'Care" promises from the GOP'ers.. just bullshit, they won't even repeal the Individual Mandate when it'll help them hit their own tax "reform" deficit target.

Right now the GOP Congress critters are scrambling to find ways to raise additional revenue to hit the deficit target but apparently nobody over in "fiscal conservative, small government" land is looking for ways to solve the BIG fucking problem... SPENDING.

So the GOP "base" is getting a good fucking over by the unprincipled dickweeds they voted for, they're try to do all these things they told you they were against, with Republicans like these who needs Democrats?

"You been had, you been took, you been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok" -- Malcolm X

The majority of middle class won't be itemizing, so doing away with the SALT deductions won't matter to them, those deductions disproportionately advantage the wealthy.


.

Unfortunately that's not really the case in high tax metro areas like NYC, LA, etc.., losing the SALT deduction can result in higher taxes for middle income wage earners.

Not to mention the fact that it's idiotic for the federal government to tax income that the earner had to fork over to State and/or Local Government no matter what the income level of the person, classic case of double taxation.

If the Republicrats would just focus on spending reductions then they wouldn't have to resort to all these shenanigans that run counter to their stated principles to cut taxes and they wouldn't end up just shifting taxes into the future (i.e. accumulating debt). If they'd do that I'd have some respect for them but as it stands now they're functionally no different than the Democrats when it comes to confiscating other peoples money, Borrow&Spend-R, Tax&Spend-D, same shit, different logo.

The good news (that I read this morning) is that the GOP Congress Critters are getting pushed hard to repeal the Obama Don't Care Individual Mandate in the tax bill, so it's apparently still in play.

See post #136.


.

Yeah and ? what does that have to do with the fact that eliminating SALT deductions will end up increasing the federal income tax burden on some middle income wage earners or that it's idiotic to tax the same income twice.

Define a middle income wage earner. And explain why people making the same income shouldn't pay the same in federal taxes. Why should life style and location be a factor at all?


.

 

[OKTexas]

"The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

GOP tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to debt: CBO

So where are those tea party conservatives that ran on a very strict ‘we will not add to the federal debt/deficit!’

Clearly, that policy does not apply to tax breaks for corporations and the already wealthy.

Lower spending. Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending. The biggest part of government spending.

Our tax rates are as high as they are because of them.

Eliminate deductions, exemptions, and credits and you can lower tax rates for EVERYONE.

Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending.

Not all of them.........

Name one that isn't.


.

 

[AntonToo]

"The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

GOP tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to debt: CBO

So where are those tea party conservatives that ran on a very strict ‘we will not add to the federal debt/deficit!’

Clearly, that policy does not apply to tax breaks for corporations and the already wealthy.

Lower spending. Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending. The biggest part of government spending.

Our tax rates are as high as they are because of them.

Eliminate deductions, exemptions, and credits and you can lower tax rates for EVERYONE.

Problem solved.

Of course we do not pay tax-rate, we pay EFFECTIVE tax rate, which for some will ACTUALLY go up without deductions.

Prime losers would be younger home owners with kids.

It's not some magic free lunch where everybody wins - it's reshuffling tax liabilities where some lose, some win.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Find a rate, say 10 or 11%
Put it in across the board and remove ALL deductions.

There is no reason for this shit to be this complicated.

 

[rightwinger]

Find a rate, say 10 or 11%
Put it in across the board and remove ALL deductions.

There is no reason for this shit to be this complicated.

So our wealthiest citizens see their tax rate drop from 39% down to 10% and our poorest workers see their taxes increased from 0 to 10%

 

[AntonToo]

LOL, it's not a conspiracy theory, one of the principle architects of Obamacare came right out and said it

Bullshit.

Go ahead and quote that...RW nonsense in 3....2....1

 

[OKTexas]

So tell the class, where is the sweet spot?
.

Depends on type of tax, collection system and social factors. So there are a lot of answers.

Consensus for American income taxes is at least 50% (that's where most conservative, not liberal, macro economic opinion is)

Tax Analysts -- What Is the Revenue-Maximizing Tax Rate?

We of course DO NOT NEED maximized collections, we just need enough to pay for the spending.

So tell the class, where is the sweet spot?
.

Depends on type of tax, collection system and social factors. So there are a lot of answers.

Consensus for American income taxes is at least 50% (that's where most conservative, not liberal, macro economic opinion is)

Tax Analysts -- What Is the Revenue-Maximizing Tax Rate?

We of course DO NOT NEED maximized collections, we just need enough to pay for the spending.

All this theoretical stuff is fun, what concerns me is the inequity in current law. I'll give you a few examples. Like the refundable child tax credit, it's nothing but another welfare program embedded in the tax code, you want a damn welfare program do bury it in the tax code, put it in the damn budget so people can see exactly what we're spending on welfare.

Second people should pay the same taxes on the same incomes. That little thing about equal treatment under the 14th Amendment comes to mind. But that's not the case, they use the tax code for social engineering, rewarding people for the decisions the government endorses and taxing people at a higher rate who chose otherwise. Like people that chose not to have children, or a mortgage or live in lower tax States. People living in TN with no children or mortgage making $100,000 should pay the exact same tax as someone living in NY with 4 kids and a house making the same.

The way it is now, the folks in TN are subsidizing the life style of the people of NY, because even if they have the same house, number of kids and income, the folks in TN are still paying more to the feds because of the SALT deductions. That ain't right, how about we level the playing field? That applies to everyone regardless of tax rate.


.

Let’s get something straight - NY taxpayers subsidize TN people, not the other way around. Because TN gets more spending from feds than they put in ($1.6 for every $1 TN pays in).

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

People in New York STILL PAY MORE TAXES even with SALT deduction so your argument about them getting something extra is nonsense.

Finally, to live comparably to TN in NY your income needs to be at least 30% higher, which means that per-lifestyle you are paying FEDS more taxes even after SALT deductions.

You can deflect 10 ways form Sunday, it doesn't alter the FACT that the same income is treated differently by the current tax law depending on where and how you chose to live. That is NOT equal treatment under the law.
.

Nonsense it is not treated differently - in law the deduction of SALT is UNIFORM for all states, it just so happens that different places have different taxes.

Taxing a taxed part of income is blatant double taxation, which I THOUGHT you were against.

Sure it is, assuming the gross income is the same, how and where you live determines your tax liability. People that live in low tax states and have no children pay much higher federal taxes. Where's the fairness?

And don't give me any BS about double taxation, every pack of smokes I buy, I pay federal taxes, State taxes and then State and local sales taxes are paid on all those other taxes. If you drink beer or other alcohol the same applies. Haven't heard you say a word about situations like that, is it because it doesn't effect you?


.

 

[AntonToo]

Depends on type of tax, collection system and social factors. So there are a lot of answers.

Consensus for American income taxes is at least 50% (that's where most conservative, not liberal, macro economic opinion is)

Tax Analysts -- What Is the Revenue-Maximizing Tax Rate?

We of course DO NOT NEED maximized collections, we just need enough to pay for the spending.

Depends on type of tax, collection system and social factors. So there are a lot of answers.

Consensus for American income taxes is at least 50% (that's where most conservative, not liberal, macro economic opinion is)

Tax Analysts -- What Is the Revenue-Maximizing Tax Rate?

We of course DO NOT NEED maximized collections, we just need enough to pay for the spending.

All this theoretical stuff is fun, what concerns me is the inequity in current law. I'll give you a few examples. Like the refundable child tax credit, it's nothing but another welfare program embedded in the tax code, you want a damn welfare program do bury it in the tax code, put it in the damn budget so people can see exactly what we're spending on welfare.

Second people should pay the same taxes on the same incomes. That little thing about equal treatment under the 14th Amendment comes to mind. But that's not the case, they use the tax code for social engineering, rewarding people for the decisions the government endorses and taxing people at a higher rate who chose otherwise. Like people that chose not to have children, or a mortgage or live in lower tax States. People living in TN with no children or mortgage making $100,000 should pay the exact same tax as someone living in NY with 4 kids and a house making the same.

The way it is now, the folks in TN are subsidizing the life style of the people of NY, because even if they have the same house, number of kids and income, the folks in TN are still paying more to the feds because of the SALT deductions. That ain't right, how about we level the playing field? That applies to everyone regardless of tax rate.


.

Let’s get something straight - NY taxpayers subsidize TN people, not the other way around. Because TN gets more spending from feds than they put in ($1.6 for every $1 TN pays in).

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

People in New York STILL PAY MORE TAXES even with SALT deduction so your argument about them getting something extra is nonsense.

Finally, to live comparably to TN in NY your income needs to be at least 30% higher, which means that per-lifestyle you are paying FEDS more taxes even after SALT deductions.

You can deflect 10 ways form Sunday, it doesn't alter the FACT that the same income is treated differently by the current tax law depending on where and how you chose to live. That is NOT equal treatment under the law.
.

Nonsense it is not treated differently - in law the deduction of SALT is UNIFORM for all states, it just so happens that different places have different taxes.

Taxing a taxed part of income is blatant double taxation, which I THOUGHT you were against.

Sure it is, assuming the gross income is the same, how and where you live determines your tax liability. People that live in low tax states and have no children pay much higher federal taxes. Where's the fairness?

And don't give me any BS about double taxation, every pack of smokes I buy, I pay federal taxes, State taxes and then State and local sales taxes are paid on all those other taxes. If you drink beer or other alcohol the same applies. Haven't heard you say a word about situations like that, is it because it doesn't effect you?


.

Is the deflection from the fact that tax-cuts would increase deficits over yet?

 

[sakinago]

"The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

GOP tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to debt: CBO

So where are those tea party conservatives that ran on a very strict ‘we will not add to the federal debt/deficit!’

Clearly, that policy does not apply to tax breaks for corporations and the already wealthy.

“Where are the fiscal conservatives?” Dear god, if you took half a second to think...if you are typing on this site, you SHOULD have the capacity to figure this out yourself. I doubt you are this dumb, I suspect you’re throwing out this very retarded 2nd grade level strawman question. GOP is usually for lower taxes, SMALLER GOVERNMENT, and definitely against wasteful government spending. Does that make that statement an Oxymoron like you are suggesting, if you’d answer yes, you are an uneducated idiot drone, who only listens to thing they want to hear to boost there own self esteem. The correct answer is no, and I’m not going to waste my life to take you from point A to point B for the answer to your question on this one because it isn’t necessary. If you already knew the correct answer, which you should, then that makes this you knowingly posting a strawman argument, and you don’t really know what it is exactly you believe or why, you just know that whatever the GOP or trump pushes you are supposed to hate, and fish for whatever reason you need to hate it, even if that reason is a total strawman argument.

Really, with a GOP controlled congress, senate, and whitehouse...the left should be jumping for joy at this tax plan, that does raise taxes for on the rich, some to almost 50%. So where are the left that believe that we should be raising taxes on the rich, that’s what’s happening, why are you against this? That’s actually a better OP, you should edit yours.

 

[NightFox]

Define a middle income wage earner.

The generally accepted definition is 66.333% to 200% of the median household income adjusted for local cost of living.

And explain why people making the same income shouldn't pay the same in federal taxes. Why should life style and location be a factor at all?
.

Because the costs aren't the same so while the NOMINAL income (in terms of number of dollars) might be equal the REAL income (actual purchasing power of that income) isn't.

We're not talking about "life style" here we're talking about the cost of State and Local TAXES, which one might point out would likely result in federal transfer payments and other subsidies to the States and Localities in question if they weren't being paid locally, so it's not like people are getting screwed if they live in a locality with low State and Local taxes, their REAL income still remains on par.

What the GOP is proposing is to tax income that was paid out in taxes which leads one to ask; since when was double taxation a plank in the GOP platform? Since when was it a conservative principle to encourage more money flowing into the central government and less to State and Local governments? I thought conservatives believed in decentralization.

 

[OKTexas]

All this theoretical stuff is fun, what concerns me is the inequity in current law. I'll give you a few examples. Like the refundable child tax credit, it's nothing but another welfare program embedded in the tax code, you want a damn welfare program do bury it in the tax code, put it in the damn budget so people can see exactly what we're spending on welfare.

Second people should pay the same taxes on the same incomes. That little thing about equal treatment under the 14th Amendment comes to mind. But that's not the case, they use the tax code for social engineering, rewarding people for the decisions the government endorses and taxing people at a higher rate who chose otherwise. Like people that chose not to have children, or a mortgage or live in lower tax States. People living in TN with no children or mortgage making $100,000 should pay the exact same tax as someone living in NY with 4 kids and a house making the same.

The way it is now, the folks in TN are subsidizing the life style of the people of NY, because even if they have the same house, number of kids and income, the folks in TN are still paying more to the feds because of the SALT deductions. That ain't right, how about we level the playing field? That applies to everyone regardless of tax rate.


.

Let’s get something straight - NY taxpayers subsidize TN people, not the other way around. Because TN gets more spending from feds than they put in ($1.6 for every $1 TN pays in).

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

People in New York STILL PAY MORE TAXES even with SALT deduction so your argument about them getting something extra is nonsense.

Finally, to live comparably to TN in NY your income needs to be at least 30% higher, which means that per-lifestyle you are paying FEDS more taxes even after SALT deductions.

You can deflect 10 ways form Sunday, it doesn't alter the FACT that the same income is treated differently by the current tax law depending on where and how you chose to live. That is NOT equal treatment under the law.
.

Nonsense it is not treated differently - in law the deduction of SALT is UNIFORM for all states, it just so happens that different places have different taxes.

Taxing a taxed part of income is blatant double taxation, which I THOUGHT you were against.

Sure it is, assuming the gross income is the same, how and where you live determines your tax liability. People that live in low tax states and have no children pay much higher federal taxes. Where's the fairness?

And don't give me any BS about double taxation, every pack of smokes I buy, I pay federal taxes, State taxes and then State and local sales taxes are paid on all those other taxes. If you drink beer or other alcohol the same applies. Haven't heard you say a word about situations like that, is it because it doesn't effect you?


.

Is the deflection from the fact that tax-cuts would increase deficits over yet?

You have nothing but a theory that says it will, I have a theory that says it won't. We disagree. Now would you like to actually address the post you quoted?


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

GOP tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to debt: CBO

So where are those tea party conservatives that ran on a very strict ‘we will not add to the federal debt/deficit!’

Clearly, that policy does not apply to tax breaks for corporations and the already wealthy.

Lower spending. Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending. The biggest part of government spending.

Our tax rates are as high as they are because of them.

Eliminate deductions, exemptions, and credits and you can lower tax rates for EVERYONE.

Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending.

Not all of them.........

Name one that isn't.


.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

 

[AntonToo]

7
You have nothing but a theory that says it will, I have a theory that says it won't.
.

Yea, except "my theory" is consistent with CONSERVATIVE macro economists and YOUR "theory" is consistent only with other rightwing tax-cut zealots.

Claims to equivalency are spurious - it's kinda like claiming that a general gravitational theory is equivalent to a theory that a hand of god makes things fall.