(12-01-2017 11:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 06:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 06:17 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 03:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 03:16 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I don't click on Fit's Mother Jones, Salon or buzzfeed stuff.

So in other words.

Bury your head in the sand.

You do it all of the time. Why should we allow you to corner the market on that?

Fit, post the analyses in text and graphs, make sure to include what deductions are still included for regular employed people, self employed etc. Tax rates etc. Tax deferred accounts, write offs at what %'s, mortgage interest deductions, etc. all of it.
Not clicking on you links, don't be lazy dude.

Who gets a tax cut or increase in 2019?
No change means a taxpayer owes within $100 of what they pay now.

Tax CutNo ChangeTax Increase
$20-30k
45.6%
49.1%
$50-75k
80.3%
10.3%
9.5%
$100-200k
83.7%
14.3%
$500-$1 million
91.5%
8.5%
Above $1 million
80.4%
19.4%
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation Created with Datawrapper

I cant read that ****** formatted data, however, the reason about 50% of the people in that first column will see no reduction in taxes is because they already pay no taxes. Notice how the working poor and middle class who are paying taxes will receive a tax cut. Why do you hate those people??

(12-01-2017 11:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 11:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 06:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 06:17 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 03:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  So in other words.

Bury your head in the sand.

You do it all of the time. Why should we allow you to corner the market on that?

Fit, post the analyses in text and graphs, make sure to include what deductions are still included for regular employed people, self employed etc. Tax rates etc. Tax deferred accounts, write offs at what %'s, mortgage interest deductions, etc. all of it.
Not clicking on you links, don't be lazy dude.

Who gets a tax cut or increase in 2019?
No change means a taxpayer owes within $100 of what they pay now.

Tax CutNo ChangeTax Increase
$20-30k
45.6%
49.1%
$50-75k
80.3%
10.3%
9.5%
$100-200k
83.7%
14.3%
$500-$1 million
91.5%
8.5%
Above $1 million
80.4%
19.4%
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation Created with Datawrapper

I cant read that ****** formatted data, however, the reason about 50% of the people in that first column will see no reduction in taxes is because they already pay no taxes. Notice how the working poor and middle class who are paying taxes will receive a tax cut. Why do you hate those people??

I don't hate working class people. If I did, I wouldn't show you information that proves that they are going to have to pay more in taxes under this bill.

I hear what you are saying about those who pay no taxes. I don't care a rats ass about them.

I'm talking about people like me that make less than 100k.

(11-30-2017 01:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  On Wednesday, a leaked analysis from Congress’ nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation showed that 38 percent of Americans would not get a significant tax cut in 2019 under the Senate tax bill. The estimate reinforces multiple studies showing that the wealthiest Americans would be the biggest winners under the House and Senate tax bills, despite Republicans’ repeated claims to the contrary.



http://Linky WinkyLinky Winky


I don't think this is what Americans expected.

Most Americans are idiots when it comes to taxes... and how can you possibly give a significant tax cut to someone who doesn't pay significant amounts of taxes?


The entire premise of this story is just the same old tired class warfare that democrats have been doing for a long time


People need to be smarter

That doesn't mean this is a great tax plan... It just means that the complaints about it dictated in the article are biased, completely misleading and totally without merit.

You might be a liberal if

(12-01-2017 12:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  you give a significant tax cut to someone who doesn't pay significant amounts of taxes

All tax reform is an exercise in burden shifting.

Does it raise taxes effectively on some? Yes. Does it lower them on others? Yes.

(12-01-2017 12:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  All tax reform is an exercise in burden shifting.

Does it raise taxes effectively on some? Yes. Does it lower them on others? Yes.

Thank you for the bipartisan analysis.

It's spot on.

Which is why I always laugh when people complain about wealth redistribution.

It's just a matter of where the money is being distributed.

Actually that's not entirely true.

That premise assumes a zero-sum game, which ignores the 'unlocking' of stored value overseas or in trusts that demonstrably took place when Reagan reformed taxes, IOW, it depends on HOW you reform taxes.

Although the rate went down on the wealthy, the amount of taxes they paid (at least in the US) went up

Employment went up and wages rose... which means that those people also paid more taxes, but only a minute fraction of what their wage increases were.


Serious simple example....

A wealthy man has $100mm in the US and $20mm in Ireland. Ireland has a 25% marginal rate and ours is 40. Where does the $10mm he just earned go?

Raise our rate to 50% and you not only lose that $10mm, I'm betting he shifts at least some of that $100mm to Ireland.
Lower our rate to 20% and I'm betting you not only get that 10, but perhaps all $20 in Ireland.

Be careful, I said marginal rate. We didn't discuss the average rate paid, which we all know is closer to 17% for the wealthy... but only on the $100mm that is currently here.

***eta, i should have said EARNINGS on the $100mm. The $100mm doesn't get taxed if it doesn't change. This is one of the primary ways the wealthy keep from paying taxes... They own Coke at $1 and don't sell it. It becomes worth millions and they use it like a bank, but never sell it and don't pay taxes, sometimes for generations. In fact, they actually write some of it off.
They could easily earn more if they sold it, but they'd have to pay taxes so they don't, and we collect NOTHING.

And a man on unemployment gets $18k/yr and pays no taxes.... give him a job paying 50k/yr and he will pay taxes.

That's what the left would call 'a massive tax hike on the poor'.

(12-01-2017 03:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Actually that's not entirely true.

That premise assumes a zero-sum game, which ignores the 'unlocking' of stored value overseas or in trusts that demonstrably took place when Reagan reformed taxes, IOW, it depends on HOW you reform taxes.

Although the rate went down on the wealthy, the amount of taxes they paid (at least in the US) went up

Employment went up and wages rose... which means that those people also paid more taxes, but only a minute fraction of what their wage increases were.


Serious simple example....

A wealthy man has $100mm in the US and $20mm in Ireland. Ireland has a 25% marginal rate and ours is 40. Where does the $10mm he just earned go?

Raise our rate to 50% and you not only lose that $10mm, I'm betting he shifts at least some of that $100mm to Ireland.
Lower our rate to 20% and I'm betting you not only get that 10, but perhaps all $20 in Ireland.

Be careful, I said marginal rate. We didn't discuss the average rate paid, which we all know is closer to 17% for the wealthy... but only on the $100mm that is currently here.

And a man on unemployment gets $18k/yr and pays no taxes.... give him a job paying 50k/yr and he will pay taxes.

That's what the left would call 'a massive tax hike on the poor'.

I'm still trying to figure out how the poor get screwed when one that pays zero AND subsidized, has to go to work to still pay zero if jobs are created that limit subsidization......(no I don't)

gotta love the dippo logic of incentives that promote the lazy and defunct sect.....sounds like VZ to me.....

(12-01-2017 03:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Actually that's not entirely true.

That premise assumes a zero-sum game, which ignores the 'unlocking' of stored value overseas or in trusts that demonstrably took place when Reagan reformed taxes, IOW, it depends on HOW you reform taxes.

Although the rate went down on the wealthy, the amount of taxes they paid (at least in the US) went up

Employment went up and wages rose... which means that those people also paid more taxes, but only a minute fraction of what their wage increases were.


Serious simple example....

A wealthy man has $100mm in the US and $20mm in Ireland. Ireland has a 25% marginal rate and ours is 40. Where does the $10mm he just earned go?

Raise our rate to 50% and you not only lose that $10mm, I'm betting he shifts at least some of that $100mm to Ireland.
Lower our rate to 20% and I'm betting you not only get that 10, but perhaps all $20 in Ireland.

Be careful, I said marginal rate. We didn't discuss the average rate paid, which we all know is closer to 17% for the wealthy... but only on the $100mm that is currently here.

***eta, i should have said EARNINGS on the $100mm. The $100mm doesn't get taxed if it doesn't change. This is one of the primary ways the wealthy keep from paying taxes... They own Coke at $1 and don't sell it. It becomes worth millions and they use it like a bank, but never sell it and don't pay taxes, sometimes for generations. In fact, they actually write some of it off.
They could easily earn more if they sold it, but they'd have to pay taxes so they don't, and we collect NOTHING.

And a man on unemployment gets $18k/yr and pays no taxes.... give him a job paying 50k/yr and he will pay taxes.

That's what the left would call 'a massive tax hike on the poor'.

The Trump tax plan isn't sweeping enough to render your line of thought accurate.

At its core, Trump's tax plan really doesn't amount to much.

(12-01-2017 03:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Actually that's not entirely true.

That premise assumes a zero-sum game, which ignores the 'unlocking' of stored value overseas or in trusts that demonstrably took place when Reagan reformed taxes, IOW, it depends on HOW you reform taxes.

Although the rate went down on the wealthy, the amount of taxes they paid (at least in the US) went up

Employment went up and wages rose... which means that those people also paid more taxes, but only a minute fraction of what their wage increases were.


Serious simple example....

A wealthy man has $100mm in the US and $20mm in Ireland. Ireland has a 25% marginal rate and ours is 40. Where does the $10mm he just earned go?

Raise our rate to 50% and you not only lose that $10mm, I'm betting he shifts at least some of that $100mm to Ireland.
Lower our rate to 20% and I'm betting you not only get that 10, but perhaps all $20 in Ireland.

Be careful, I said marginal rate. We didn't discuss the average rate paid, which we all know is closer to 17% for the wealthy... but only on the $100mm that is currently here.

***eta, i should have said EARNINGS on the $100mm. The $100mm doesn't get taxed if it doesn't change. This is one of the primary ways the wealthy keep from paying taxes... They own Coke at $1 and don't sell it. It becomes worth millions and they use it like a bank, but never sell it and don't pay taxes, sometimes for generations. In fact, they actually write some of it off.
They could easily earn more if they sold it, but they'd have to pay taxes so they don't, and we collect NOTHING.

And a man on unemployment gets $18k/yr and pays no taxes.... give him a job paying 50k/yr and he will pay taxes.

That's what the left would call 'a massive tax hike on the poor'.

If this tax bill did anything close to what the Republicans claim the Reagan tax cuts did, they would have said it already.

They delayed the vote because their isn't a provision to resind the tax cuts if they don't bring in the revenue you claim it will.

They had to rescind the Reagan tax cuts for the same reason.

Trickle down economics doesn't work it's been tried over and over and over again. It doesn't work.

(12-01-2017 05:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Trump tax plan isn't sweeping enough to render your line of thought accurate.

At its core, Trump's tax plan really doesn't amount to much.

Let me start by saying my comment wasn't intended to be an indictment of your statement/opinion, but an indictment of the generalizations when it comes to such detailed but important issues.

You didn't say all the Trump tax plan was.....

You said ALL TAX REFORM....

And my response (after already saying, I'm not commenting on Trump's plan) was that your statement wasn't entirely true.

My statement is true.

Your opinion on the Trump plan is noted, and may well be correct... but I know a whole lot about the issue and while I feel qualified to engage in debate on the subject, i don't feel qualified to argue that MY opinion would be in any way undeniable. Stephen Roach was a friend of mine when I worked in that industry, and he wouldn't have made such a sweeping comment about Trump's tax plan unless he was being paid to take a definitive position, and when he did, he's finish it with... of course the opposite could be true as well. These are educated guesses, and some of us (maybe you) are more educated than others. The average voter is very poorly educated on these issues.

The most important parts are that the OP specifically says :
a leaked analysis from Congress’ nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation showed that 38 percent of Americans would not get a significant tax cut in 2019 under the Senate tax bill.

Well no ****.

Given how many Americans don't pay income taxes, this is among the most misleading OR ignorant statements anyone could make about ANY tax plans.

Let me say it differently. Remember the $600 credits? To someone making 20k/yr, that's real money. To someone with a family making 50k, I wouldn't call that 'a significant tax cut'... and that guy doesn't pay much in Taxes, to you can't cut the taxes he doesn't pay... I'd guess that anyone making between about 40k and 80k (which is probably 38% of Americans) would fall into that category. THOSE people will most likely benefit more from wage increases and advancement opportunities more than tax cuts.... which is the GOAL of tax cuts for businesses and often, but not always accomplishes that goal.

YOUR statement is often true, but doesn't have to be... and may or may not be true here. The reason it is often true is because people will fall for lines like '38% of people don't get a significant cut' and 'all taxes are is burden redistribution' and think they are informed.

There are ways to do it that lift all boats... but we need to be smarter/more educated than will fit on a bumper sticker.

Again, not chastising you for your generalization, just noting that just because the majority of them are that way doesn't mean we shouldn't educate ourselves on the ones that actually have the chance to do good, being aware that opinions will always vary, even among very informed and intelligent people.

'you have to pass it to know what's in it', lol

(12-01-2017 05:19 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 03:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Actually that's not entirely true.

That premise assumes a zero-sum game, which ignores the 'unlocking' of stored value overseas or in trusts that demonstrably took place when Reagan reformed taxes, IOW, it depends on HOW you reform taxes.

Although the rate went down on the wealthy, the amount of taxes they paid (at least in the US) went up

Employment went up and wages rose... which means that those people also paid more taxes, but only a minute fraction of what their wage increases were.


Serious simple example....

A wealthy man has $100mm in the US and $20mm in Ireland. Ireland has a 25% marginal rate and ours is 40. Where does the $10mm he just earned go?

Raise our rate to 50% and you not only lose that $10mm, I'm betting he shifts at least some of that $100mm to Ireland.
Lower our rate to 20% and I'm betting you not only get that 10, but perhaps all $20 in Ireland.

Be careful, I said marginal rate. We didn't discuss the average rate paid, which we all know is closer to 17% for the wealthy... but only on the $100mm that is currently here.

***eta, i should have said EARNINGS on the $100mm. The $100mm doesn't get taxed if it doesn't change. This is one of the primary ways the wealthy keep from paying taxes... They own Coke at $1 and don't sell it. It becomes worth millions and they use it like a bank, but never sell it and don't pay taxes, sometimes for generations. In fact, they actually write some of it off.
They could easily earn more if they sold it, but they'd have to pay taxes so they don't, and we collect NOTHING.

And a man on unemployment gets $18k/yr and pays no taxes.... give him a job paying 50k/yr and he will pay taxes.

That's what the left would call 'a massive tax hike on the poor'.

If this tax bill did anything close to what the Republicans claim the Reagan tax cuts did, they would have said it already.

They delayed the vote because their isn't a provision to resind the tax cuts if they don't bring in the revenue you claim it will.

They had to rescind the Reagan tax cuts for the same reason.

Trickle down economics doesn't work it's been tried over and over and over again. It doesn't work.

So now we can add financial expert to the myriad of subjects (legal being #1) you're an expert on?

(12-01-2017 05:19 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  They delayed the vote because their isn't a provision to resind the tax cuts if they don't bring in the revenue you claim it will.
They had to rescind the Reagan tax cuts for the same reason.

Umm, they didn't rescind the Reagan tax cuts. And it certainly did not fail to bring in revenues. Tax revenues rose significantly in the 1980s, and the portion of total revenues paid by the "wealthy" actually went up by 7%. Growth during the decade of the 1980s was more than even the supply siders had forecast. By the time Reagan left office, tax revenues at a 28% top rate were larger than had been forecast at the beginning of the decade with a 70% assumed top rate.

Here is one analysis of the impacts that mentions some of the points.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commen...rned-1980s

It suggests that in the short run tax cuts may reduce revenues, but that in about 7 years, the growth impact takes over and results in increased tax revenues.

There are many ways to parse the statistics to suit whatever argument the author wants to make. But in the macro sense, arguing that the Reagan tax cuts reduced tax revenues or failed to generate growth are simply false. Now, on the other hand, the argument that all tax cuts increase tax revenues is simply false. That's why nobody in their right mind makes that argument. The only place I see it is in attempts to mischaracterize what the supply siders actually say.

Quote:Trickle down economics doesn't work it's been tried over and over and over again. It doesn't work.

Why don't you explain what you mean by "trickle down" economics and when it was tried? Since it's been tried "over and over" it should be easy for you to find an example. And since it has always failed, why do you suppose western Europe, and indeed all the rest of the developed world, revised their tax structures on supply side principles in the decades of the 1990s and 2000s?

The ignorance I alluded to continues to show

The wealth gap did its best under Reagan and its worst under Democrats. It did 'okay' under Both Bushes, mediocre under Clinton and awful under Obama....

And yet the mantra continues against all that evidence that republicans favor the wealthy and democrats favor the poor.... And that trickle down doesn't work (and they describe any cut in taxes as being trickle down)

Handouts to the poor don't work by themselves because cheap basic products aren't generally made in the US... So the production and jobs created by that stimulus go overseas.

And the biggest thing they miss is that the reason Obamas stimulus a was trickle down, but it didn't work in terms of shrinking the wealth gap is that he gave breaks to the wealthy and then told them he was going to eventually raise their taxes to pay for it... But without a timetable.... So the wealthy engaged in short term money making (for them) projects, and NOT investments in job creation.

True ignorance on the part of the public for being so blind


Trumps plan requires people who understand economics to analyze... And someone asking stupid questions like 'assume this passes and nothing else happens' or 'where is the significant tax break for people who don't pay significant taxes' or 'trickle down doesn't ever work' don't have the understanding to even discuss the problems or solutions with

(11-30-2017 01:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  On Wednesday, a leaked analysis from Congress’ nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation showed that 38 percent of Americans would not get a significant tax cut in 2019 under the Senate tax bill. [/url]

I don't think this is what Americans expected.

An to a dem this is a "raise in taxes" in the same way that to a dem a decrease in the rate of increase is a cut..

The only criticisms I've seen focus on 10 years out. Fun fact, in ten years some other bill is going to overwrite all of this.

Tell me fitbud... How much of a tax break should a group of people who pay effectively no income tax get?

The next time the Congressional Budget office is right about anything, will be the first. They deliberately use static scoring which ignores the fact that people change their behaviors based on the rules changes. I used to be a business analyst and every year the company would publish the compensation guide for sales. Why did it change every year? Because the company wrote the comp plan to drive the sales they wanted. The sales reps figured out what made them the most money and did that instead.

(11-30-2017 04:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Well you can't say I didn't tell you so.

That's what we said about ObamaCare.

(12-03-2017 09:17 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  The next time the Congressional Budget office is right about anything, will be the first. They deliberately use static scoring which ignores the fact that people change their behaviors based on the rules changes. I used to be a business analyst and every year the company would publish the compensation guide for sales. Why did it change every year? Because the company wrote the comp plan to drive the sales they wanted. The sales reps figured out what made them the most money and did that instead.

The foolish thing that both government, and often business, does is try and get people to do things that those same people don't view as being in their best interests.

Want to have a failing program - try and get people to go against their perceived best interests. It is the crux of why capitalism works and socialism doesn't - but that's another topic......

So the last several years the left has been pushing this "Rich people need to pay more taxes, because that's patriotic." ticket.

Now, they're upset at the idea that everyone's taxes might go up (assuming they're even telling the truth there).

What I'm left to gather from the associating the two is that only wealthy people should be patriotic, and/or they don't believe in patriotic duty for all.