So let's give you that yes, dollar by dollar a person making 133K is going to benefit a lot more than someone making 33K.

The average effective federal tax rate of someone making 33K or less is about 2%
The average effective federal tax rate of someone making 133K is about 20%

So when they take 1 out of every 50 dollars of person a's income and 1 out of every 5 dollars of person b...

Who do you think will benefit more?

Donks claim the new bill will raise taxes on all sorts of Americans. They should be happy, they never met a tax they didn't like.

(12-04-2017 10:25 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  Donks claim the new bill will raise taxes on all sorts of Americans. They should be happy, they never met a tax they didn't like.

The Donks also claim it's patriotic for rich folk to be paying more. Time for them to just tell their folks to pony up for 'ol patriotism and STFU.

I'm not sure that is exactly what they are saying.

(12-04-2017 10:33 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm not sure that is exactly what they are saying.

There are two arguments against the tax plan I've heard

1 - In 10 years some people pay more
2 - It benefits the higher income groups more

To 1 all I have to say is *10 years*. If you think there won't be more changes to the tax code in the next ten years.

(12-04-2017 10:39 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 10:33 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm not sure that is exactly what they are saying.

There are two arguments against the tax plan I've heard

1 - In 10 years some people pay more
2 - It benefits the higher income groups more

To 1 all I have to say is *10 years*. If you think there won't be more changes to the tax code in the next ten years.

The biggest criticism I have heard is that it impacts many in the overpopulated areas of the country.

The tax plan is 500 pages, anyone read it so far?

(12-04-2017 10:39 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 10:33 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm not sure that is exactly what they are saying.

There are two arguments against the tax plan I've heard

1 - In 10 years some people pay more
2 - It benefits the higher income groups more

To 1 all I have to say is *10 years*. If you think there won't be more changes to the tax code in the next ten years.

Seriously? You haven't heard one complaint about the projected 1T to 1.5T hole in the deficit?

And it's not 10 years. It's closer to 5 years for lower income folks. And it's not just some people, it's a LOT of people! Pretty much everyone earning under 75K a year will have a tax increase by 2027. That's roughly 60% of the population.

(12-04-2017 12:10 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The tax plan is 500 pages, anyone read it so far?

Probably just the lobbyists who wrote much of it. Congress certainly hasn't.

(12-04-2017 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Seriously? You haven't heard one complaint about the projected 1T to 1.5T hole in the deficit?

I ignored those talking points given the dems ignored 10T of new debt under Obama..

Quote:It's closer to 5 years for lower income folks.

Fine, let's give you five years. You don't think there will be changes to the tax code in the next five years?

Quote:And it's not just some people, it's a LOT of people! Pretty much everyone earning under 75K a year will have a tax increase by 2027

Hey it's 2017, that means 2027 is 10 years away, not five. Pick something and go with it... Just put your talking points in some kind of sensible order, would you..

(12-04-2017 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 10:39 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 10:33 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm not sure that is exactly what they are saying.

There are two arguments against the tax plan I've heard

1 - In 10 years some people pay more
2 - It benefits the higher income groups more

To 1 all I have to say is *10 years*. If you think there won't be more changes to the tax code in the next ten years.

Seriously? You haven't heard one complaint about the projected 1T to 1.5T hole in the deficit?

And it's not 10 years. It's closer to 5 years for lower income folks. And it's not just some people, it's a LOT of people! Pretty much everyone earning under 75K a year will have a tax increase by 2027. That's roughly 60% of the population.

So a decade's worth of tax relief in exchange for the off chance (being that the GOP doesn't go back in between now and then and kick that can down the road) of higher taxes in 2027?

BAH GAWD THE HORROR!

(12-04-2017 12:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:10 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The tax plan is 500 pages, anyone read it so far?

Probably just the lobbyists who wrote much of it. Congress certainly hasn't.

Gotta pass it to know what was in it... When it was pointed out that it was mathematically near impossible for the dems to have read O-care before voting on it all we got from guys like you was

(12-04-2017 12:41 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Seriously? You haven't heard one complaint about the projected 1T to 1.5T hole in the deficit?

I ignored those talking points given the dems ignored 10T of new debt under Obama..

Quote:It's closer to 5 years for lower income folks.

Fine, let's give you five years. You don't think there will be changes to the tax code in the next five years?

Quote:And it's not just some people, it's a LOT of people! Pretty much everyone earning under 75K a year will have a tax increase by 2027

Hey it's 2017, that means 2027 is 10 years away, not five. Pick something and go with it... Just put your talking points in some kind of sensible order, would you..

Dude, in 5 years lower income folks are expected to start seeing tax increases. By 10 years, those up to 75k will see them.

It's not a one or the other thing. And it's not a ******* talking point. It's an analysis of the bill by the JCT.

Quote:President Trump and Republican lawmakers have been heralding their bill as a win for hard-working Americans, but the JCT report casts doubt on that claim. Tax increases for households earning $10,000 to $30,000 would start in 2021 and grow sharply from there, JCT found. By 2027, most Americans earning $75,000 a year or less would be forced to pay more in taxes, while people earning more than $100,000 a year would continue to pay less. The report generated intense debate on Capitol Hill.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...ed010285ee

(12-04-2017 12:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:10 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The tax plan is 500 pages, anyone read it so far?

Probably just the lobbyists who wrote much of it. Congress certainly hasn't.

Gotta pass it to know what was in it... When it was pointed out that it was mathematically near impossible for the dems to have read O-care before voting on it all we got from guys like you was

Much like Obama's massive increases in the debt were OK and a slight increase under Trump isn't it was OK for a dim congress to not read bills before passing them.

(12-04-2017 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 10:39 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 10:33 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm not sure that is exactly what they are saying.

There are two arguments against the tax plan I've heard

1 - In 10 years some people pay more
2 - It benefits the higher income groups more

To 1 all I have to say is *10 years*. If you think there won't be more changes to the tax code in the next ten years.

Seriously? You haven't heard one complaint about the projected 1T to 1.5T hole in the deficit?

And it's not 10 years. It's closer to 5 years for lower income folks. And it's not just some people, it's a LOT of people! Pretty much everyone earning under 75K a year will have a tax increase by 2027. That's roughly 60% of the population.

0'bummer doubles the debt in 8 yrs by ~9.9T

tax plan = 1-1.5T PROJECTED increase over 10 yrs.....

you're a friggin' math genius....

(12-04-2017 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dude, in 5 years lower income folks are expected to start seeing tax increases. By 10 years, those up to 75k will see them.

And do you really believe that taxes will not get touched in the next five years, really?

Quote:It's not a one or the other thing. And it's not a ******* talking point. It's an analysis of the bill by the JCT.

One does not exclude the other tommy, one does not exclude the other. Neg my rep all you want.

The fact of the matter is that for at least five years everyone gets a cut. People who pay more get more of a cut.

Taxes, unlike O-Care, are pretty simple things to change in the future if you don't like it. So I'm really not sweating the 5-10 year implications of a bill that can be changed in a few months.

(12-04-2017 12:41 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Seriously? You haven't heard one complaint about the projected 1T to 1.5T hole in the deficit?

I ignored those talking points given the dems ignored 10T of new debt under Obama..

Quote:It's closer to 5 years for lower income folks.

Fine, let's give you five years. You don't think there will be changes to the tax code in the next five years?

Quote:And it's not just some people, it's a LOT of people! Pretty much everyone earning under 75K a year will have a tax increase by 2027

Hey it's 2017, that means 2027 is 10 years away, not five. Pick something and go with it... Just put your talking points in some kind of sensible order, would you..

1. The GOP campaigns on the importance of lowering the deficit, the Dems don't, therefore critiquing the GOP on their plans to raise the deficit simply points out their hypocrisy and the disingenuous nature of their beliefs. Deficits matter less than making sure tax cuts are passed, but deficits matter more than healthcare, child nutrition, and virtually any initiative passed for the public good. Offhandedly dismissing this is pretty transparent, even for you. And that's doesn't even begin to go into the utterly flawed concept of tax cuts during times of growth.

2. You're literally saying "I bet things change before the worst parts of this bill are enacted" as if it's a compelling argument. The obvious counter being, why the f*ck you supporting something if you acknowledge it needs to change?

This is bad, even for you.

Why can't you snowflake conservatives ever take a neg rep point without immediately looking for any reason to neg rep point the one who gave it to you?

What a bunch of ******* *****'s you are. Sad.

(12-04-2017 12:42 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 10:39 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 10:33 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm not sure that is exactly what they are saying.

There are two arguments against the tax plan I've heard

1 - In 10 years some people pay more
2 - It benefits the higher income groups more

To 1 all I have to say is *10 years*. If you think there won't be more changes to the tax code in the next ten years.

Seriously? You haven't heard one complaint about the projected 1T to 1.5T hole in the deficit?

And it's not 10 years. It's closer to 5 years for lower income folks. And it's not just some people, it's a LOT of people! Pretty much everyone earning under 75K a year will have a tax increase by 2027. That's roughly 60% of the population.

So a decade's worth of tax relief in exchange for the off chance (being that the GOP doesn't go back in between now and then and kick that can down the road) of higher taxes in 2027?

BAH GAWD THE HORROR!

Need to read that in his voice

(12-04-2017 12:57 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dude, in 5 years lower income folks are expected to start seeing tax increases. By 10 years, those up to 75k will see them.

And do you really believe that taxes will not get touched in the next five years, really?

That excuses nothing in the analysis of this bill. Nothing.