https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...spartanntp

Looks generally good in concept.

Before reading that I'm sure the DNC anti-talking points are already being circulated.

Yea, those states that havent been paying their fair share to the federal government (Cali, NY, etc) in which residents were allowed to reduce their federal taxes because their state taxed them at the payroll level will start having to pay their fair federal share.

Also, in states like NY and CA, where houses are very expensive, they will lose a chunk of their mortgage and property tax deductions.

In other words, the people who need to pay their fair share will be paying it. The rest of us will get $2K to $4K back in our pockets.

If Trump would allow us to purchase non-Oblundercare insurance, I could use the tax savings to get real insurance, and save even more money.

Reality is that anyone who is buying a house from 500k-1000k (they are proposing lower the deductible mortgage interest from a 1.0 million loan cap to 500k) either;
a) Can come up with up to half a million downpayment to bring the mortgage down to 500k;
b) Isn't going to be hurt by losing the deduction; or
c) Shouldn't be buying a house that expensive.

Also, it may tend to bring housing inflation in high cost locations down somewhat. That is a good thing.

looks good. glad they did not alter 401K's...

I think they should remove the taxes for 401k. My understanding is this, I put it in tax free, but when i withdraw I get taxed. They should remove that tax.

So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...

You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?

If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?

(11-02-2017 10:13 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I think they should remove the taxes for 401k. My understanding is this, I put it in tax free, but when i withdraw I get taxed. They should remove that tax.

Under the new tax plan, the amount of money you would be withdrawing per month from your 401K may keep you completely in the 0% tax bracket.

(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...

You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?

If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?

What about the last 8 years? Where were you?

(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...

You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?

If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?

On paper, it will be far less than the stupid spending we got under OBlunder.

In reality, it will likely generate a tremendous amount more revenue to the treasury, therefore it more than pays for itself.

(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...

You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?

If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?

Yeah, we remember. We remember your side basically mocked and ridiculed us for daring to bring it up. Why the sudden 180 on this?

One stupid thing they didn't get rid of was 39.6% tax bracket. That rate was a 10% "surcharge" on the 36% bracket. Why keep stupid stuff? Make it a nice round 40%.

(11-02-2017 10:37 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...

You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?

If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?

What about the last 8 years? Where were you?

Right here. Not sure of your point...my position hasn't changed on any of this.

(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...

You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?

If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?

Lowering the burden on consumers, even modestly like this plan apparently does, will spur economic activity even further than the 3%+ growth glide path were on now.

An expanding economy, not anemic 1 +-% garbage like we endured the last 8 yrs, will also raise wages.

Increased Economic activity, higher wages, further growth in the markets all generate increased tax receipts.

More money in our pockets, more money flowing to treasury, more money for 401ks, public pensions and a whole host of other things.

It’s a WIN all the way around.


Just so much winning. I may need a nap.

(11-02-2017 10:44 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...

You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?

If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?

On paper, it will be far less than the stupid spending we got under OBlunder.

In reality, it will likely generate a tremendous amount more revenue to the treasury, therefore it more than pays for itself.

Most of the early on spending under Obama was needed to get us out of the recession and the train wreck left by Bush. After that, the Republicans were in control of the purse strings for the rest as the Dems never had a filibuster proof majority for more than a few months.

That being said, the Republicans overspend just as much as Democrats. They both are equal in that respect.

Finally, there is absolutely NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that merely cutting taxes directly increases revenue. This will in no way pay for itself. And since we know that spending will not equally decrease...because Congress...this bill will undoubtedly blow up the deficit and national debt even further.

(11-02-2017 11:26 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...

You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?

If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?

Lowering the burden on consumers, even modestly like this plan apparently does, will spur economic activity even further than the 3%+ growth glide path were on now.

An expanding economy, not anemic 1 +-% garbage like we endured the last 8 yrs, will also raise wages.

Increased Economic activity, higher wages, further growth in the markets all generate increased tax receipts.

More money in our pockets, more money flowing to treasury, more money for 401ks, public pensions and a whole host of other things.

It’s a WIN all the way around.


Just so much winning. I may need a nap.

Proof please?

(11-02-2017 10:55 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...

You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?

If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?

Yeah, we remember. We remember your side basically mocked and ridiculed us for daring to bring it up. Why the sudden 180 on this?

I'm not explaining any position I hold here. I'm listing your sides. No 180.

(11-02-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Most of the early on spending under Obama was needed to get us out of the recession and the train wreck left by Bush. After that, the Republicans were in control of the purse strings for the rest as the Dems never had a filibuster proof majority for more than a few months.

Interesting you note this. Seems the economy under Bush was fairly normal until 2006. Something happened to the purse strings in 2006, but I cant quite remember.

BOMBSHELL: New Study Destroys Theory That Tax Cuts Spur Growth

(11-02-2017 11:33 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Most of the early on spending under Obama was needed to get us out of the recession and the train wreck left by Bush. After that, the Republicans were in control of the purse strings for the rest as the Dems never had a filibuster proof majority for more than a few months.

Interesting you note this. Seems the economy under Bush was fairly normal until 2006. Something happened to the purse strings in 2006, but I cant quite remember.

Not interesting at all really. Democrats are just as bad as Republicans in controlling the purse strings. Never said otherwise.